Kondrath v. Arum, Civ. A. No. 94-217-JLL.
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware) |
| Writing for the Court | LATCHUM, Senior |
| Citation | 881 F. Supp. 925 |
| Parties | Mark T. KONDRATH and Dave Tiberi, Plaintiffs, v. Bob ARUM, Top Rank, Inc., Bob Lee, International Boxing Federation, Inc., Ron Katz, Larry Hazzard, Robert Palmer, Frank Garza, Bill Lerch, Industria Reyes, S.A., and Does 1 Through 8, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 94-217-JLL. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1995 |
881 F. Supp. 925
Mark T. KONDRATH and Dave Tiberi, Plaintiffs,
v.
Bob ARUM, Top Rank, Inc., Bob Lee, International Boxing Federation, Inc., Ron Katz, Larry Hazzard, Robert Palmer, Frank Garza, Bill Lerch, Industria Reyes, S.A., and Does 1 Through 8, Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 94-217-JLL.
United States District Court, D. Delaware.
March 27, 1995.
David P. Cline, Wilmington, DE (Edward Brigham, Towson, MD, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
David A. Jenkins, and Michele C. Gott, of Smith, Katzenstein & Furlow, Wilmington, DE (Ike Lawrence Epstein, of Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy, Jemison & List, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, of counsel), for defendants Bob Arum, Top Rank, Inc., and Ron Katz.
David A. Jenkins, and Michele C. Gott, of Smith, Katzenstein & Furlow, Wilmington, DE (Walter R. Stone, and Sherry A. Giarrusso, of Adler, Pollock & Sheehan, Providence, RI, of counsel), for defendants Intern. Boxing Federation, Inc., Robert Palmer, Frank Garza, and Bill Lerch.
OPINION
LATCHUM, Senior District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this action alleging violations of the federal RICO statute, the New Jersey Racketeering statute, violations of various fiduciary duties, fraud, breach of contract, and are also seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Presently before the Court are defendants Arum, Top Rank, Inc. ("Top Rank"), Lee, International Boxing Federation, Inc., ("IBF"), Katz, Garza, and Lerch's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer, (Docket Item "D.I." 20), and defendant Palmer's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer (D.I. 35).1 The defendants have filed their opening and reply briefs. (D.I. 21 & 27.) The plaintiffs filed their answering brief as well. (D.I. 24.) The Court heard oral argument on the issues raised in the motion and these briefs on March 2, 1995.2
Also before the Court are the plaintiffs' motion for limited early discovery, (D.I. 32), with an accompanying brief in support of that motion, (D.I. 33), defendants' answering brief, (D.I. 34), and the plaintiffs' reply brief (D.I. 36).
For the reasons below, the Court will grant the defendants' motion to transfer and will dismiss as moot plaintiffs' motion for limited early discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
II. FACTS
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have been members of a "RICO Enterprise" ("Enterprise") for at least the last ten years. Garza, Lerch, and Palmer have been members of the Enterprise for fewer than ten years, however. (D.I. 6, ¶ 22.) They further allege that the Enterprise "fixes" IBF fights so that the IBF champion will retain his title in order to increase popular interest in the current champion, which, in turn, increases the profitability of fights involving that champion. (Id., ¶¶ 41-47.)
A. The Parties
Plaintiff Dave Tiberi is a professional boxer who is a citizen and resident of Delaware. (Id., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff Mark Kondrath is a manager of professional boxers, including Tiberi, and is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania. (Id., ¶ 8.)
Defendant Bob Arum is a professional boxing promoter and is a citizen of Nevada, residing in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Id., ¶ 10.) Top Rank is a corporation engaged in the business of promoting professional boxing. It is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Id., ¶ 20.) Bob Lee is the president of the IBF and is a citizen of New
B. The Events
The defendants alleged wrongs can be divided into three discreet classes: (1) events before the Toney-Tiberi fight; (2) events which occurred during the fight; and (3) events after the fight.
1. Before the Fight
Sometime in December 1991, the Enterprise decided it wanted to promote a title fight between the IBF champion Toney and another, as yet, undetermined fighter. (Id., ¶¶ 55-57.) The purpose of this fight was to generate interest in two fights that had been scheduled between Toney and two other fighters for April and September, 1992. (Id., ¶ 54.) The Enterprise directed a matchmaker, Katz, to find an opponent that Toney could beat, and he chose Tiberi. (Id., ¶¶ 57, 62.) In order to recruit Tiberi for the fight, Katz, who was in Garden City, New York, phoned Tiberi's manager, Kondrath, in Pennsylvania, who agreed that Tiberi would fight Toney on February 8, 1992 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. (Id., ¶¶ 63-64.)
At that time, Tiberi was the IBC (a Florida-based boxing organization) middleweight champion. In order to conform to the IBF rules, Katz instructed Kondrath that Tiberi would have to relinquish his IBC title in order to fight in an IBF-sanctioned match. (Id., ¶ 67.) Tiberi relinquished that title via a letter to the IBC mailed on December 18, 1991. (Id., ¶ 68.) Also on that day, Tiberi and Kondrath sent a letter to the IBF requesting that they rank Tiberi among the IBF's "top 10" fighters so that he would be eligible to fight in an IBF-sanctioned title bout. (Id., ¶ 69.) Over the next several days, pursuant to various communications between Katz, in New York, and IBF Commissioner Lee, in New Jersey, the IBF ranked Tiberi in its top 10. (Id., ¶¶ 70-73.) And on December 20, Arum, on behalf of Top Rank, faxed to Kondrath's business office in Pennsylvania a contract which would obligate Tiberi to fight in a succession of title defenses in the event he won the Toney-Tiberi fight. Tiberi and Kondrath executed that contract in Pennsylvania. (Id., ¶¶ 73-74.)
Plaintiffs also allege a series of communications among members of the Enterprise and various advertisers of products whose commercials were scheduled to be shown during the Toney-Tiberi fight, although the plaintiffs do not say where they believe the participants in these conversations were located. (Id., ¶ 75.) They further allege that various members of the Enterprise engaged in another series of communications, all with at least one party in New Jersey and none in Delaware, in order to allow Garza and Lerch to serve as fight judges for the Toney-Tiberi fight, even though neither is licensed in New Jersey. (Id., ¶¶ 76-78.) On February 3, 1992, Arum, from Las Vegas, telephoned a reporter for The News Journal in Delaware and told him that Tiberi had a good chance of beating Toney. (Id., ¶¶ 80-83.)
Finally, plaintiffs allege that, from December 10, 1991 through February 8, 1992, Katz, from his office in New York, made a series of phone calls to Kondrath in Pennsylvania and
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Learn Skills Corp., Civil Action No. 06-229-SLR.
...§ 3104(c)(4). 2. RICO Jurisdiction The RICO statute provides for nationwide service of process. 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d); Kondrath v. Arum, 881 F.Supp. 925, 929 (Del). Thus, defendants need only have minimum contacts with the United States to satisfy the due process requirements of personal juri......
-
Wyant v. National RR Passenger Corp., 94 Civ. 7259 (JGK)
...proposed amendment aims to remedy a fundamental defect in the original notice of removal or attempts to add a new ground for removal. 881 F. Supp. 925 Id. at *1 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re CBS Inc., 762 F.Supp. 71, 73 (S.D.N.Y.1991) ("A petition for removal may be a......
-
Sky Global, LLC v. William Noble & William Noble Rare Jewels, LP, 1:18-CV-00629 EAW
...509, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("Failure to assert federal question jurisdiction as a basis for removal is a substantive defect."); Wyant, 881 F. Supp. at 925 ("Amtrak did not assert its federal question basis for removal in its notice of removal in any way. This Court cannot now, six months afte......
-
Parker v. Learn Skills Corp., Civil Action No. 06-229-SLR.
...§ 3104(c)(4). 2. RICO Jurisdiction The RICO statute provides for nationwide service of process. 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d); Kondrath v. Arum, 881 F.Supp. 925, 929 (Del). Thus, defendants need only have minimum contacts with the United States to satisfy the due process requirements of personal juri......
-
Wyant v. National RR Passenger Corp., 94 Civ. 7259 (JGK)
...proposed amendment aims to remedy a fundamental defect in the original notice of removal or attempts to add a new ground for removal. 881 F. Supp. 925 Id. at *1 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also In re CBS Inc., 762 F.Supp. 71, 73 (S.D.N.Y.1991) ("A petition for removal may be a......
-
Sky Global, LLC v. William Noble & William Noble Rare Jewels, LP, 1:18-CV-00629 EAW
...509, 517 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("Failure to assert federal question jurisdiction as a basis for removal is a substantive defect."); Wyant, 881 F. Supp. at 925 ("Amtrak did not assert its federal question basis for removal in its notice of removal in any way. This Court cannot now, six months afte......