In re U.S Office Products Co. Securities Litigat.
| Decision Date | 04 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 1999-382(AVC).,No. 1999-MS-137(RMU).,No. 1271.,1999-MS-137(RMU).,1271.,1999-382(AVC). |
| Citation | 251 F.Supp.2d 58 |
| Parties | In re U.S. OFFICE PRODUCTS CO. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Phillip H. Arturi and Bruce E. Torello, Plaintiffs, v. United States Office Products Co., Aztec Technology Partners, Inc., and Jonathan Ledecky, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
David Patrick Donovan, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for U.S. Office Products Co. Securities Litigation.
Herbert Esar Milstein, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper LLP, New York City, Richard B. Dannenberg, Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, White Plains, NY, Andrew L. Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Bala Cynwd, PA, Jules Brody, Stull, Stall & Brody, New York City, Richard E. Castiglioni, Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP, Stamford, CT, for lead plaintiff, Anthony W. De Sio, Ray Kostkowski, Raven'S Wood LLP, James May and Todd Semon, plaintiffs.
James Linwood Quarles, III, HALE & DORR, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs, Aztec Technology Partners, James Claypoole.
Daniel S. Sommers, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for plaintiff, Ray Kostkowski.
David Kessler, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Bala Cynwd, PA, for plaintiffs, Michael E. Williams, James May.
Jill Rosell, Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, White Plains, NY, for plaintiffs, Raven'S Woods L.P., Anthony W. De Sio.
Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper LLP, New York City, for plaintiffs, Todd Semen, Thomas Lindsey.
Burton Hyman Finkelstein, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Washington, DC, for plaintiff, Gary L. Marolla.
Aaron L. Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York City, for plaintiffs, Richard J. Letcher, Marilyn Mandel. Ann H. Rubin, Carmody & Torrance LLP, New Haven, CT, for plaintiffs, Philip H. Arturi, Bruce Torello.
Dickinson Wright, Rock A. Wood, Grand Rapids, MI, for plaintiffs, Gregory F. Vogel, Charles R. Cox.
Daniel S. Sommers, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Richard Bemporad, Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, White Plains, NY, for plaintiff, Class Plaintiffs.
John Christopher Keeney, Jr., Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for defendant, Jonathan Ledecky.
David Patrick Donovan, John Quinn Rounsaville, Jr., Matthew A. Brill, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for defendant, U.S. Office Products.
Richard A. Roth, Ira S. Meyerowitz, Littman, Krooks, Roth & Ball, New York City, for defendant, Sands Brothers & Co., Ltd.
Wiley E. Mayne, Charles W. Groscup, Denver, Co, for defendant, Navigant International.
David Patrick Donovan, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, for defendants, Thomas I. Morgan, Donald H. Platt, Mark D. Director.
In September 1997, the plaintiffs sold their company, Professional Network Services ("PNS"), to defendant U.S. Office Products ("USOP") in exchange for 121,124 shares of USOP common stock. After the merger and before the plaintiffs sold their USOP stock, the value of the USOP stock decreased significantly. The plaintiffs claim that on February 11, 1998, the defendants agreed to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss in value of the USOP stock. After the defendants failed to provide this compensation to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices.
The plaintiffs originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL Judicial Panel") transferred the case to this court for pretrial proceedings as part of the USOP Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") action pending in this court. This case and others in the USOP MDL action involve defendants USOP and Jonathan Ledecky, the former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President of USOP; but this is the only USOP MDL case also filed against defendant Aztec Technology Partners ("New Aztec"). The court dismissed defendant Ledecky from this complaint in an earlier Memorandum Opinion. This matter is now before the court on the separately filed motions to dismiss filed by defendants USOP and Aztec. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants in part and denies in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The plaintiffs, Philip Arturi and Bruce Torello, are the former owners of PNS, a corporation located in Connecticut. Am. Compl. ("Compl.") IN 1, 11. On September 25, 1997, the plaintiffs sold PNS to USOP, a corporation located in the District of Columbia, for 121,124 shares of USOP stock pursuant to a written Agreement and Plan of Reorganization ("Reorganization Agreement"). Id. 11120, 22. During negotiations regarding USOP's acquisition of PNS, the defendants allegedly made misleading statements and concealed information regarding USOP's business strategy. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were thereby able to acquire PNS for less than the agreed-upon consideration ("Merger Consideration"). Id. ¶ 4.
On February 11, 1998, the plaintiffs and Jack Meehan3 met with Jonathan Ledecky, the Chairman and former President of USOP, and James Claypoole, the President of USOP's Technology Solutions Group, in the District of Columbia to discuss their concerns about the decreasing value of their USOP stock. Id. ¶¶ 13, 39, 40. The plaintiffs state that at this meeting, Messrs. Ledecky and Claypoole unconditionally guaranteed that USOP would remedy the situation by giving the plaintiffs and Mr. Meehan unrestricted stock in a new entity, defendant New Aztec. Id. ¶ 40. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that Mr. Ledecky personally guaranteed that if USOP did not take action to address their concerns after the USOP spinoffs occurred, Mr. Ledecky himself would make the plaintiffs whole. Id. Mr. Claypoole stated that the agreement to make the plaintiffs whole ("February 11 Agreement") should remain confidential and that he and Mr. Ledecky would not enter into a formal written agreement with the plaintiffs. Id. 1142. The plaintiffs sent letters to both Mr. Claypoole ("Claypoole letter") and Mr. Ledecky ("Ledecky letter") to confirm the oral agreement. Id. 111142, 45, Exs. A-B. On June 9, 1998, New Aztec, a corporation and a spin-off of USOP that included PNS, was created. Id. 145. When the defendants failed to take action to address the plaintiffs' concerns and make them whole as allegedly promised, the plaintiffs filed this action. Id. 1149.
The plaintiffs originally filed this case in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Subject-matter jurisdiction in that court was premised on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The MDL Judicial Panel transferred the case to this member of this court for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, as part of the USOP MDL action. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint focusing on the February 11 Agreement and claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"). On September 13, 1999 the defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted defendant Ledecky's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on January 2, 2001.
The court stayed this MDL action several times due to bankruptcy filings, MDL transfers, and mediation efforts. Renewed Mot. of Class Action Pls. to Restore Case to Active List at 1-2. On January 4, 2002, 10 months after providing notice of its bankruptcy, USOP filed a notice regarding its liquidation and reorganization. On January 17, 2002 New Aztec filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. On December 10, 2002 the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Bankruptcy Trustee's motion to dismiss New Aztec's bankruptcy case and authorized the trustee to provide the secured creditors with the balance of the New Aztec funds. In re Aztec Tech. Partners, Inc., No. 01-17767 (Bankr.D.Mass. Dec. 10, 2002). New Aztec no longer operates and has no funds, officers, or directors. Mot. to Withdraw at 1. New Aztec's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel on December 19, 2002, explaining it cannot authorize or assist in New Aztec's defense because New Aztec no longer exists. Id.
Defendant USOP moves the court to dismiss the complaint for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Mot. to Dismiss (USOP) at 13.4 The plaintiffs counter that venue is proper in Connecticut. Pls.' Opp'n (USOP) at 6. The plaintiffs also argue that if venue is not proper in Connecticut then justice requires the court to transfer the case to the appropriate district rather than dismiss the action. Id. at 10.
In a MDL action, the transferee judge has the same jurisdiction and power over pretrial proceedings that the transferor judge would have in the absence of the transfer. In re Aircrash Disaster Near Monroe, Mich, on Jan. 9, 1997, 20 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1111 (E.D.Mich.1998). Because the MDL Judicial Panel transferred the plaintiffs' complaint to the USOP MDL action for pretrial proceedings in this court, this court must determine whether venue would properly lie in the transferor court, the District of Connecticut. Id.
In a case, such as this one, where jurisdiction is based on diversity, venue is proper in:
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.M. v. Shady Grove Reprod. Sci. Ctr. P.C.
... ... spoke on the phone with Sarah Crisp, an office supervisor at SGF. Def.s SMF 50; Pl.s SMF 92. Crisp said that SGF would ... fairly specific statements about the strength of demand for their products and there was a question of material fact as to whether they knew this was ... ...
-
New York State Bar Ass'n v. F.T.C.
... ... providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial service providers ... " ... and other means as they seek to provide more and better products to consumers, the privacy of data about personal financial information has ... U.S. Office Products Co., 251 F.Supp.2d 58, 66-67 (D.D.C.2003) ("While the court must ... ...
-
In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., 2:03-md-1565.
... ... The claims include ones under federal and state securities laws, as well as common law claims for breach of ... Page 293 ... other sales materials" were delivered to MetLife at its "New Jersey office, where the decisions to purchase the Notes were made." MetLife Compl., ¶ ... v. Rexius Forest By-Products Inc., No. 2:02-cv-1288, 2007 WL 894833 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 22, 2007). There, ... ...
-
Simms v. Dist. Of D.C. .
... ... 699 F.Supp.2d 221 Joann Patricia Myles, Law Office of Joann P. Myles, Largo, MD, for Plaintiff. Lisa Alexis Jones, Lisa ... ...
-
Comity Versus Unitary Law: a Clash of Principles in Choice-of-law Analysis for Class Certification Proceedings in Multidistrict Litigation
...U.S. 516, 531 (1990). 37. Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 633. 38. Id.at 639. 39. See, e.g., In re United States Office Prods. Co. Sec. Litig., 251 F. Supp. 2d 58, 68 (D.D.C. 2003); In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria, 257 F. Supp. 2d 717, 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Prods. ......