Ansell.Law litigators Anthony D’Artiglio and Gabriel Blum recently obtained a dismissal of a lawsuit filed in New York against two Indiana attorneys who were appointed as receivers in an Indiana action to marshal the assets of a Texas-based company, Ready 2 Go Transport Central (“R2G”). Neither the individuals nor the allegations in the complaint had any nexus with New York. Nevertheless, and although the claims relate to and concern receivers’ actions in Indiana, the plaintiffs commenced the action in New York. D’Artiglio and Blum’s aggressive litigation strategy spared the firm’s clients the burden and expense of defending the action in a jurisdiction far away from where they reside and conduct business as attorneys.
The case arose from R2G’s perilous financial condition. Because R2G was on the brink of insolvency, a lawsuit was filed in Hamilton County, Indiana, seeking the appointment of a receiver to marshal and manage the company’s assets and liabilities. The Indiana court appointed two attorneys, Indiana residents whose places of business were in Indiana, to act as receivers.
While that matter remained pending, two investors/owners of R2G filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York, claiming that the receivers acted improperly in denying their claims for compensation. Neither of the plaintiffs who filed suit in New York were parties to the Indiana proceeding.
On behalf of the receivers, D’Artiglio and Blum filed a motion to dismiss the New York action on several grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction over the Indiana-based defendants and lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to an order from the Indiana court giving it exclusive jurisdiction over any action filed against the receivers.
The Supreme Court of New York agreed with D’Artiglio and Blum and granted their motion in its entirety. In its order dismissing the case, the court noted that the court in Indiana had issued an order in which it retained “exclusive jurisdiction and possession of the assets, of whatever kind and wherever situated” of R2GT in receivership. The order also stated that the Hamilton County Superior Court in Indiana “shall retain jurisdiction” over any action filed against the receivers based upon acts or omissions committed in their respective capacities.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the case, as D’Artiglio and Blum argued, and dismissed the matter in its entirety.
The Firm congratulates D’Artiglio and Blum for their hard work in obtaining this favorable result for our clients.
