From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

University Sav. Ass'n v. Bank of New Haven

United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Apr 22, 1991
765 F. Supp. 35 (D. Conn. 1991)

Opinion

Civ. A. Nos. N-88-240 (WWE), N-88-241 (WWE), N-88-418 (WWE) and N-90-595 (EBB).

April 22, 1991.

Kenneth Williams, Leny K. Wallen-Friedman, Timothy S. Fisher, Robinson Cole, Hartford, Conn.

Jerry Metcalf, Robert S. Maclntyre, PHV Baker Brown Sharman and Parker, Houston, Tex.

Regina Giovannini, Baker Brown Sharman Parker, Houston, Tex.

Gene Harter, Ellen H. Brown, Los Angeles, Cal.

Geoffrey L. Squitiero, Thomas Murtha, Jeffrey Lynch, Maher and Murtha, Bridgeport, Conn.

Elizabeth P. Gilson, Penny Q. Seaman, Wiggin Dana, New Haven, Conn.

Maura Walsh O'Brien, Halloran Sage Phelon Hagarty, Hartford, Conn.

Daniel Nicherie, pro se.

Emmanuel Nicherie, Tustin, Cal., Branford, Conn.

Jonathan Elliot, Thomas Mingoue, Jr., Neal Moskow, Kleban and Samor P.C., Southport, Conn.

John Kremer, Huntington Beach, Cal., for Nicherie.

Leonard S. Gordon, Lawrence Herrmann, Cheshire, Conn.

Richard G. Bell, Carter LaPrade, Tyler Cooper Alcorn, New Haven, Conn.

Kristine Ragaglia, William S. Fish, Jr., Thomas Marrion, Tyler Cooper and Alcorn, Hartford, Conn.

Patricia Skelley, Kristine Ragaglia, William S. Fish, Tyler, Cooper Alcorn, Hartford, Conn.

Todd Hunter, Hunter, Redford, Wray Woolsey, Corpus Christi, Tex., for Lewis-Orestis.

Michael Gustafson, George D. Royster, Jr., Maura Walsh-O'Brien, Karen D. Oestreicher, Matther E. Karanian, Dennis P. O'Connor, Joseph Fortner, Harris Appelman, Halloran, Sage, Phelon Hagarty, Hartford, Conn., Jeffrey A. Davis, Babcock Scofield, Houston, Tex., for Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America.

John M. Kremer, Huntington Beach, Cal.

Mark E. Aronson, Anderson, McPharlin Conners, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.

Robert B. Yules, Hartford, Conn.

Jonathan D. Elliot, Kleban Samor, P.C., Southport, Conn.


RULING ON THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT ORAH NICHERIE'S MOTION TO DISMISS


Third party plaintiff Guardian Life Insurance Company of America ("Guardian") filed a third party complaint against third party defendants Orah Nicherie, Emmanuel E. Nicherie, Daniel Nicherie, and Innovative Planning, Inc. on or about June 25, 1990. The complaint alleges causes of action for subrogation, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., ("RICO"), and conversion. Orah Nicherie, a resident of California, is named as a defendant in all counts except the breach of contract and fiduciary duty claim.

Orah Nicherie moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. On September 17, 1990 this Court reserved ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss, pending the completion of discovery necessary to resolve jurisdictional issues. For the reasons set forth below the defendant's motion to dismiss will now be denied.

DISCUSSION

When deciding a motion to dismiss under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must accept all well pleaded allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the pleader. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). In the instant action the complaint includes a RICO claim, which requires that personal jurisdiction be determined under federal law, not state law. Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. v. Charles Schmitt Co., 657 F. Supp. 1040, 1055 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). RICO includes provisions that allow for "nationwide service of process." Therefore, a federal district court enjoys jurisdiction "coextensive with the boundaries of the United States, [and] due process requires only that a defendant in a federal suit have minimum contacts with the United States." Soltex Polymer Corp. v. Fortex Industries, Inc., 590 F. Supp. 1453, 1458 (E.D.N.Y. 1984) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d)). As a resident of California, Orah Nicherie is subject to personal jurisdiction under this standard.

Guardian's state law claims against Orah Nicherie are properly before this court pursuant to the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. The claims all derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to hear all related claims and try the case at one time. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. v. Charles Schmitt Co., 657 F. Supp. 1040, 1056 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, third party defendant Orah Nicherie's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

University Sav. Ass'n v. Bank of New Haven

United States District Court, D. Connecticut
Apr 22, 1991
765 F. Supp. 35 (D. Conn. 1991)
Case details for

University Sav. Ass'n v. Bank of New Haven

Case Details

Full title:UNIVERSITY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION v. BANK OF NEW HAVEN, and a Third Party…

Court:United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Date published: Apr 22, 1991

Citations

765 F. Supp. 35 (D. Conn. 1991)

Citing Cases

World Wide Minerals v. Republic of Kazakhstahn

This ruling recognized that other jurisdictions have used a national contacts test. See Omni Video Games,…

Monarch Normandy v. Normandy Square

The majority of courts have held that there is no requirement of minimum contacts with the state in which the…