Kermanshah v. Kermanshah

Decision Date11 August 2008
Docket NumberNo. 08 Civ. 0409(BSJ)(AJP).,08 Civ. 0409(BSJ)(AJP).
Citation580 F.Supp.2d 247
PartiesHabibollah KERMANSHAH, Plaintiff, v. Abbas KERMANSHAH, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Nathaniel Ari Weisbrot, Phillips, Nizer, L.L.P., Hackensack, NJ, for Plaintiff.

F. Barbara Gluck Reid, Robert M. Abrahams, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, New-York City, for Defendants.


ANDREW J. PECK, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Habibollah ("Habib") Kermanshah1 brings this diversity action against his three younger brothers—all former business, partners—and their corporations and partnership, asserting claims of declaratory judgment (Dkt. No. 34: Am. Compl. ¶¶ 62-66), minority shareholder oppression (id. ¶¶ 67-70), corporate dissolution (id. ¶¶ 71-74), breach of fiduciary duty (id. ¶¶ 75-80), breach of contract (id. ¶¶ 81-83), fraud (id. ¶¶ 84-89), conversion (id. ¶¶ 90-96), accounting (id. ¶¶ 97-102), unjust enrichment (id. ¶¶ 103-04), and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (id. ¶¶ 105-08).

Presently before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. No. 36: Defs. Notice of Motion), on the grounds that: (1) Habib's claims are timebarred by the applicable statutes of limitations (Dkt. No. 37: Defs. Br. at 15-24); and (2) Habib's sixth cause of action, for fraud, should be dismissed as duplicative of the fifth cause of action for breach of contract (Defs. Br. at 24). The parties have consented to decision of this motion by a Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 24.)

For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Habib's claims for: (1) corporate accounting, (2) minority shareholder oppression, (3) corporate dissolution, and (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Habib's other claims, for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, partnership accounting and declaratory judgment.


The facts alleged in Habib's amended complaint and the exhibits thereto are assumed to be true for purposes of this motion, and will be set forth herein without use of the preamble "Habib alleges."

The Defendants

Defendants Abbas Kermanshah ("Abbas"), Abdolmajid Kermanshah ("Majid") and Abdolhamid Kermanshah ("Hamid") are plaintiff Habib's three younger brothers, and are Iranian-born, naturalized United States citizens, with their residences (and principal places of business) in Manhattan. (Dkt. No. 34: Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-4, 20.)

The corporate defendants all are New York corporations with a principal place of business in New York City. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-16.) Defendants Kermanshah Brothers Oriental Rugs, Inc. ("KBOR"), Kermanshah Oriental Rugs, Inc. ("KOR") and Kermanshah Brothers Rugs, Inc. ("KBR") import and sell oriental rugs. (Am.Compl.¶¶ 8-10.)

Defendants 263 West 30th Inc., Rahman NY, Inc. and Shirewil, Inc. own mixed-use buildings in Manhattan. (Am.Compl.¶¶ 5, 6, 15, 33-34, 40.) Defendants Ebrahim Realty, Inc., Sherin West 86th Street Corp. and Wilshire Limited own residential buildings in Manhattan. (Am. Compl.¶¶ 7, ¶¶ 16, 35, 39, 41.)

Defendant Overseas Partnership Co., Inc. ("Overseas Corp.") owns a residential building at 41 Monroe Street in Manhattan. (Am.Comp.¶¶ 11, 37.) Defendant Overseas Partnership Company ("Overseas Partnership") owned the residential property but transferred it to Overseas Corp. (Am.Compl.¶¶ 12, 36-37.)

The Parties' Business History

Around 1971, plaintiff Habib and defendant Abbas opened "Kermanshah Rugs," a rug store in Tehran, Iran, agreeing to evenly split the profits. (Dkt. No. 34: Am. Compl. ¶ 21.) Shortly after opening this store, Abbas moved to the United States and used funds from "Kermanshah Rugs" to open a Persian rug store, "Houbas Oriental Rugs." (Am.Compl. ¶ 22.) By agreement, Habib and Abbas were 50-50 owners and equally split all "expenses, costs, losses, revenue, profit, and income generated by Houbas or its [1973] successor, Kermanshah Brothers Oriental Rugs (`KBOR')." (Am.Compl.¶¶ 22, 43.) During the 1970s, plaintiff Habib supplied rugs from Iran to Abbas for sale through KBOR. (Am.Compl.¶ 23.) Around 1978 Habib and Abbas relocated to and began importing and selling rugs in Saudi Arabia, continuing to equally share the business' profits and income. (Am.Compl.¶ 25.)

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the youngest brothers, Majid and Hamid, moved to the United States to help run Habib's and Abbas' New York business operations. (Am.Compl.¶ 26.) During the 1980s and 1990s, plaintiff Habib sent substantial revenue and income from KBOR to his brothers in the United States to invest in New York City real estate, agreeing that all investments would be shared equally among the four brothers, and that each brother would have an equal 25% ownership interest in any corporate entity created to acquire real estate properties. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29-30, 32; see also Am. Compl. Ex. A: Copies of Checks.) The four brothers agreed to equally share "all expenses, costs, revenue, income, and losses generated by the rug businesses and the real estate investments." (Am. Compl.¶ 30.) In 1990, plaintiff Habib moved to the United States (he resides in New Jersey and became a citizen in 1997), and continued to run the Saudi Arabian operations with Abbas, while Majid and Hamid had day to day management of the New York City real estate investments. (Am.Compl.¶¶ 1, 31.)

Abbas, Majid, and Hamid formed various business entities2 throughout the late 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, through which they acquired New York City real estate properties. (Am.Compl.¶¶ 32.) In or about 1987, Habib, Abbas and Hamid formed Overseas Partnership to acquire a residential building at 41 Monroe Street, for which Habib provided all of the capital. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-37 & Ex. C: 5/23/85 Check.) Habib, Abbas and Hamid were equal partners in Overseas Partnership and thus equal owners of 41 Monroe Street. (Am.Compl.¶ 36.) In or about 2000, Abbas, Hamid and Majid formed Overseas Corp., a corporation in which Habib had no interests or rights, and transferred the 41 Monroe Street property to defendants' new corporation. (Am. Compl.¶ 37.) Abbas, Hamid and Majid forged Habib's name on the deed and transfer documents.3 (Am. Compl. ¶ 37 & Ex. B: Deed.)

Defendants' Fraudulent Scheme

The amended complaint alleges that defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid fraudulently schemed, from an undetermined date, to "convert and deprive Plaintiff [Habib] of his ownership interests in the various corporate entities, including the rug companies that he co-founded." (Dkt. No. 34: Am. Compl. ¶ 44.)4 Defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid controlled the companies' books and records and "manipulate[d] the information available to Plaintiff Habib. (Am.Compl.¶ 46.) "[A]s recently as late 2006," defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid each represented to plaintiff Habib, by telephone and in person in New York and Saudi Arabia, that Habib "was an equal owner of the rug businesses and the Real Estate Properties." (Am.Compl.¶ 46.) For example, in 2006, Majid and Hamid confirmed plaintiff Habib's ownership interest in the U.S. rug businesses and real estate properties when confirming "that any issues between Abbas and Plaintiff [Habib] in Saudi Arabia had no relationship or impact on the brothers' American businesses." (Am. Compl.¶ 47.) In February 2008, defendant Majid confirmed plaintiff Habib's equal ownership interests again, when he suggested "that the businesses had been established with the intention of allowing the four brothers' children to benefit from the proceeds of the joint businesses." (Am.Compl.¶ 48.) Until late 2006, defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid paid plaintiff Habib and his family Habib's "`share' of the business," and through 2005 paid Habib's personal taxes and bills as a "return on [Habib's] investment—his share of the businesses." (Am.Compl.¶ 49.)

Defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid concealed their fraudulent activity by not registering Habib's ownership interests in the businesses or by "eras[ing] any evidence of Plaintiff's ownership." (Am. Compl.¶ 51.) In 1984, at a special KBOR board of directors meeting, defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid offered plaintiff Habib 160 of 200 shares in KBOR in exchange for eliminating their debt to Habib. (Am. Compl. ¶ 51 & Ex. E: 3/5/84 Minutes; Am. Compl. Ex. F: KBOR Stock Certificate.) Subsequently, defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid created KOR, and "transferred all of KBOR's assets, business, funds, and operations from KBOR to KOR, thus leaving Plaintiff [Habib] with 160 shares in a worthless company, and no valid debt to recover in exchange for [Habib's] substantial investments in and funding of the rug and real estate businesses in the United States." (Am.Compl.¶ 52.) Defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid later issued plaintiff Habib minority ownership in KOR, representing that the KOR interest "was intended to be combined with [Habib's] interests in KBOR to equal his overall 25% interest in the combined rug businesses." (Am. Compl. ¶ 53 & Ex. G: KOR Stock Certificate.) Until "late 2006," defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid "continued to point to the worthless stock certificate in KBOR as evidence of [Habib's] equal ownership interests, while concealing the fact that they had, in fact, converted such interests." (Am.Compl.¶ 53.) Defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid further diluted plaintiff Habib's ownership interests when they created "yet another entity, Kermanshah Brothers Rug, Inc. (`KBR')." (Am.Compl.¶ 53.)

Defendants Abbas, Majid and Hamid shared information with plaintiff Habib regarding the rug businesses, although "the practice of sharing occasional information and documentation ebbed in the mid-1990s." (Am.Compl.¶ 56.) Until late 2...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 cases
  • Holliday v. K Rd. Power Mgmt., LLC (In re Bos. Generating LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 18, 2020
    ...806, 808, 847 N.Y.S.2d 132 (2d Dep't 2007) ; see Lia v. Saporito, 909 F.Supp.2d 149, 167 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ; Kermanshah v. Kermanshah, 580 F. Supp.2d 247, 261 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ; Grynberg v. Eni S.p.A., Case No. 06-civ-6495, 2007 WL 2584727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2007). The applicable limita......
  • O'Toole v. Karnani (In re Trinsum Grp., Inc.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 29, 2011
    ...statute. See Schutte v. Rosenblum, 13 Misc.2d 818, 172 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1958). 11. In support, the Defendants cite Kermanshah v. Kermanshah, 580 F.Supp.2d 247, 263 (S.D.N.Y.2008). 12. In support, the Distributing Agent cites Gaind v. Pierot, 2006 WL 846268 (S.D.N.Y.2006); Congregation Yetev Le......
  • In re Fairway Grp. Holdings Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 19, 2015
    ...LLC, 08 Civ. 3508, 2009 WL 528620 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2009), aff'd, 377 F. App'x 72 (2d Cir. 2010); Kermanshah v. Kermanshah, 580 F. Supp. 2d 247, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Peck, M.J.); Ryan v. Hunton & Williams, No. 99-CV-5938, 2000 WL 1375265 at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2000) ("Allegations o......
  • Fioranelli v. CBS Broad. Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 28, 2021
    ..."performance under the contract merely affects damages and does not give rise to a new cause of action"); cf. Kermanshah v. Kermanshah , 580 F. Supp. 2d 247, 260–61 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (applying doctrine where "defendants’ obligation to share equally in corporate opportunities, investments, and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT