Opinion
04 CV 9407 (TPG).
August 4, 2006
OPINION
Pro se plaintiff Meenu Gaind brought this action alleging that defendants wrongfully withheld more than $20 million in profits owed to her by a securities trading business she established in partnership with Robert J. Pierot Sr. Defendants are children and business associates of Pierot Sr. and various entities associated with them.
In an opinion dated March 31, 2006, the court dismissed all claims against defendants Robert Jacobus Pierot, Jr., Edward Guinot Pierot, Felicia Pierot Choi Brody, Catherine Pierot Chen Zicherman, Pierot Enterprises, Inc., and Palm Beach Trading Enterprises, Inc. (collectively the "Pierot Defendants").
As to the remaining two defendants, Angel Garcia-Cordero and Anta Internacional Asesoramiento Financiero, S.L., the court dismissed plaintiff's third through tenth causes of action. The court also dismissed the first cause of action for fraud, but granted leave to re-plead if there was a reasonable basis for doing so. The court did not dismiss the second cause of action, for fraudulent conveyance, but because that cause of action had been alleged generally against all defendants, and in light of the dismissal of the claims against the Pierot Defendants, the court directed plaintiff to re-plead the second cause of action, "making specific allegations against Cordero and Anta if there is a reasonable basis for doing so." Plaintiff has not submitted another pleading, but this opinion does not deal with the issues as to Cordero and Anta.
The Pierot Defendants have now moved for entry of a final judgment in their favor pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
In her complaint, plaintiff alleged that the Pierot Defendants, children of Pierot Sr., and entities controlled by or associated with them, refused to honor an explicit written agreement between plaintiff and Pierot Sr. governing the terms of their joint venture, which entitled plaintiff to more than $20 million in the venture's accumulated profits. The complaint alleged that, after Pierot Sr.'s death, the Pierot Defendants wrongfully took control of the venture and fraudulently transferred the venture's assets to overseas accounts in order to avoid paying plaintiff's share of the profits.
The court dismissed plaintiff's claims as to the Pierot Defendants on the grounds of res judicata. The court found that prior to filing the present action on November 30, 2004, plaintiff had brought a nearly identical action in 1999. In a November 20, 2000 order, the court granted the Pierot Defendants' motion to dismiss the 1999 action on the grounds that plaintiff failed to file any opposition despite being granted numerous extensions. The November 20, 2000 order granted plaintiff the right to seek leave to vacate the order within forty-five days. Plaintiff did not seek leave and a Judgment was entered in favor of the Pierot Defendants on January 17, 2001 dismissing the 1999 action. On March 30, 2001, in response to correspondence from plaintiff, the court entered an additional order further confirming the dismissal and termination of the 1999 action.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration has no merit and is denied. As to the Pierot Defendants' request for judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) provides that when an action involves multiple claims or parties
the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.
The court finds that there is no just reason to delay entry of a final judgment. The basis for the court's dismissal of the claims against the Pierot Defendants is wholly separable from the issues left to be decided with respect to the remaining defendants. Moreover, this is the second action plaintiff has filed asserting the same claims against the Pierot Defendants. The first action was filed nearly seven years ago. Any further delay would prejudice the Pierot Defendants by leaving the matter unresolved for the additional, possibly lengthy period that will be required to adjudicate the claims against Cordero and Anta.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. The Pierot Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 54(b) is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Pierot Defendants dismissing all claims against them.
SO ORDERED