Sierra Nevada Holdings, Inc. v. United Leasing Corporation et al, No. 3:2010cv00047 - Document 17 (D. Nev. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Ds' 4 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue : Ds' motion to dismiss is denied. Ds' motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is granted. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/15/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
. ...., ...- . f ! ... -.. --.. ) . . c. ' '-'- '' .) ... . l . . . ) 1 ...... . y 1 i ;' ,.'ê. 1@l ; l n!lg1i *1!1 t. t I ' . . . ! , , 3 ' - - -' f j . . .. I' * . 'ï 4 ! ' 1 ; '''Y ' ''' 5 6 UN ITED STATES DISTR ICT C O URT 7 DISTR ICT O F NEVA DA 8 SIERRANEVA DAHOLDINGS,INC., Plaintift 9 ) ) ) l o v. ll UNITED LEASING CORPORATION' , y ) 1 2 13 j ) EDW ARD H.SHIELD, Defendants. l4 ) 3;1O-cv-00047-RCJ-RAM ORDER Currently before the Courtis a M otion to Dism iss for Lack ofJurisdiction or,in the 15 16 17 alternative,Motion to TransferVenue (#4)filed by DefendantsUnited Leasing Corporation (' Iunited Leasing'') and Edward H. Shield ('ishield''ltcollectively referred to herein as d'Defendants'')on March 15,2010. PlaintiffSierra Nevada Holdings,Inc.(' Isierra Nevada'') l8 filed an Opposition (#11)onApril14,2010,and Defendantsfiled a Reply (#14)on May3, 19 Sierra Nevada Holdings, Inc. v. United Leasing Corporation et al 20 2010. Doc. 17 The Courtheard oralargum enton the m atteron June 11,2010,and now grants the 21 M otion to TransferVenue. 22 BAC KG RO UND 23 This case involves severalfraud based claim s arising from a loan transaction entered 24 into between Plaintil and DefendantUnited Leasing. Plaintifffiled a Complaint(#1)inthis 25 action on January 25,2010. According to the allegations in the Complaint,Plaintiff''is and 26 was,ataIItimes materialhereto,a corporation in good standing organized underthe Iawsof 27 the State ofNew Ham pshire w ith its principalplace ofbusiness Iocated in the State of New 28 Hampshire.'' (Complaint(#1)at1). DefendantUnited Leasing ''is and was,atalltimes Dockets.Justia.com l m aterial hereto, a corporation organized under the Iaws of the State of Virginia w ith its 2 principalplace ofbusiness Iocated in the State ofVirginia.''.1 #sDefendantShieldd'isandwas, 3 atalItim es m aterialhereto,a residentand citizen of,and dom iciled in,the State ofVirginia, 4 andwasgunited Leasing's!President.''. 1j=. 5 Plaintiffallegesthatthe Coul' thasjurisdiction overthis matterpursuantto 28 U.S.C. 6 j 1332''inthatthe amountin controversyexceeds$75,000.00''and ''is betweencitizensof 7 different states.'' 1 #sat2. In addition,Plaintiffalleges thatvenue is properin this district . 8 because ''a substantialpartofthe events orom issions giving rise to the dispute''occurred in 9 Norlhern Nevada.J#-. 10 According tothe allegationsin the Com plaint,the causes ofaction asserted in thiscase 11 arise from a loan transaction entered into betw een Plaintiffand United Leasing to pay for 12 repairs to a Bell212 helicopter. Plainti; asserts thatin July 2004,it''purchased a Bell212 13 helicopterw hich needed a substantialoverhauland refurbishm ent in orderto perform w ork 14 forthe United States ForestService.''J. 4..The costfortheoverhauland refurbishmentwas 15 approximately$1,300,000,and Plaintiffneeded a Ioantofinancethework.Plaintiffstatesthat 16 it''approached the Defendantsaboutfinancing the necessaryIoan.' $...at3.Becauseofa 17 priorbusiness dealing w ith United Leasing,Plaintiffstates thatitand its principal,Jon M ayer 18 (ddMayer''),ddreposed specialtrustand reliance''inShield and United Leasing.. !#=. 19 According to the Complaint,'liln a telephone conversation in early 2005,Shield (in 20 Virginia)spoke telephonically with Sierra Nevada's principal,Jon Mayer(who is and was 21 locatedinReno)andindicatedthathe(Shield)couldprobablysecureIoanfinancingforsierra 22 Nevada ateightpercent.''l 1j .a.The complaintassel 'tsthata month Iater,Shield told Mayer .. 23 thatd'he couldfinancethe Ioan atathirteen (13$$)interestrate,''J#=. 24 Plaintiffstates thatitintended forthe financing with United Leasing ''to be short-term , 25 notpermanent,and EthatPlaintifrs)representatives communicated this factto Shield on 26 27 1ThisistheonlydirectrefcrcnceintheComplaintto anyactivityrelatingto thecaseoccurring in N evada. However, the Court notes that Plaintlff did provide cvldence of additionaltelephone 28 corpmunicationsandwrittgncorrespondencethatoccuaedbetwcenthepartiesdurzgtherelevantperiod whlle M ayerwaslocated m Reno,N evada. 2 1 several occasions.' Id. ln addition,Plaintil asserts that its representatives d'specifically 2 advised Defendants thatthe helicopterwas forUnited States ForestSen/ice operations but 3 was on a standby capacity untila contractw as secured,atw hich tim e any tem porary Ioan from 4 Defendants w ould be refinanced w ith a perm anent,Iower-rate Ioan.'' Id. Plaintiffstates that 5 during thistime,Shield madeverbalstatem entsto Plaintiff'sprincipal,Mayer,to the effectthat 6 Shield ''would take care or'Plaintiff,and so Plaintiffdiscontinued negotiations w ith other 7 potentialIenders and Iooked to Defendants to finance the Ioan. Id. 8 According to Plaintiff,the Ioan process w ith Defendants ''dragged on form onths,''and 9 eventually the interestrate was raised to 15.150:. Id.at4. In addition,Plaintiffasserts that 10 Defendants neveradvised Plaintiffthatitwould have to pay any ''residual''or''early paym ent l1 penalties.h'z Id 12 In 2007,Plaintiff''secured a fire fighting contractw ith the United States ForestService 13 and,based upon the guaranteed incom e was able to secure regularbank financing atm ore 14 com petitive m arketrates.' ld.at5. As a result,one ofPlaintifrs representatives ''contacted 15 the Defendants via an interstate telephone call to advise them of Sierra N evada's new 16 financing and its desire to pay-off the outstanding Ioan balance.'' Id. A ccording to the 17 com plaint, during a series of telephone calls regarding the pay-off issue, Defendants 18 dem anded a substantialpay-offpenalty. Plaintig states thatitprotested the pay-offpenalty, 19 butthatthepartiesultimatelysettledonademandof$285,508,33.Plaintisassertsthatithad 20 no choice butto pay this am ountotherwise United Leasing would notrelease the Iien itheld 21 againstthe helicopter,thereby causing cancellation ofPlaintiff's new ,Iower-rate loan. Id.at 22 5. 23 24 aPl aintifrscomplaintallegcsthatUnited Leasingw assufrcringfm ancialdio cultiesbetw eenzoos 25 and2007. Asaresult jPlaintiffasserk tsthatDefendan, tstthatchedaschemewherebytheydecidedjto stnlcturetheloanto ( laintifrlasan equipmentlease becausethatstructureentitledthem toderve ;!t5 certaintaxandotherfmancialadvantages.''ld.PlaintifrasscrtsthatShieldinfonnedMayerthatbecause the transaction was strujtured asa $lease,,,Plaintiffcould ignore the ;çcontract.s boilerplate term sy,,, 27 including avenueprovislon which stated thatany actionsin law orequityrelating to theIease should be comm enced andm aintainedirlk:theGeneralDistrictCourtorCircuitCourtforHanoverCounty,V irginia 28 OrtheCityofRichmond,Virginia,ortheUnited StatesDistrictCourtfortheEastem DistrictoiVirginia.''J. 1. J .S 3 1 Based on the foregoing allegations, Plainti: filed this Iaw suit asserting claim s for 2 fraudulentconcealm ent,false prom ise/econom icduress,fraud/m isrepresentation,constructive 3 fraud,civilextortion,conversion,and civilRIC O regarding the Ioan transaction and pay-off 4 penalty, 5 Defendants have now filed a M otion to Dism iss forLack ofPersonalJurisdiction,orin 6 thealternative,MotiontoTransferVenue(#4),Accordingto Defendants,the claimsasserted 7 againstthem shouldbedismissedpursuanttoRule 12(b)(2)becausethecomplaint'isdevoid 8 ofanyfactualallegationsthatestablishpersonaljurisdictionovereitherdefendant.''(Motion 9 to Dismiss (#4)at3). Moreover,Defendantsstate thatneitherUnited Leasing norShield 10 ''haveanycontactswith Nevadathatwouldjustifytheassedion ofpersonaljurisdiction,'. !. (s l1 at 3, In the alternative,Defendants seek an order transferring venue to the United States 12 D istrictCourtforthe Eastern DistrictofVirginia. .$..at4.Defendantsnote thatbcth Uni ted 13 Leasing and Shield are residents ofV irginia. Defendants further note thatPlaintiffis a New 14 Ham pshire corporation, and was neither registered nor qualified to conduct business in l5 Nevada atthe relevanttime,giving Nevada very little interestinthisdispute,!#.at4-5. 16 lnresponse,PlaintiffassertsthatpersonaljurisdictionexistsoverDefendantsbecause l7 Shield,'personally and on behalfofUnited Leasing .,.m ade a num berofm isrepresentations, 18 omissions and extortions in multiple telephone calls,m ailings and e-mails with M r.Mayer 19 while(Mayer)resided,andwasIocated in,Nevada.''(Oppositionto Motionto Dismiss(#11) 20 at2).lnaddition,Plainti:assertsthatdespitetheallegationsinthecomplaintthatPlaintiffis 21 a New Ham pshire corporation, Plaintiffis actually a resident of Nevada:'Sierra Nevada, 22 although incorporated in New Ham pshire and m aintaining a m ere office presence there in 23 orderto comply with New Hampshire Iaw,is actually a Nevada resident(orcitizen)as its 24 'nel' ve center'and thusprincipalplace ofbusiness,isIocated here.'3 1 #aPlaintiffalsoargues . 25 26 3A snotedbyDgfendants,PlaintifrwasnotregisteredwiththeNçvadaSecretalyofStateaseither 27 an entity incorporated m N evada oran entity registered to do businessm N cvada atthetim ethealleged unlaw fulconductoccun' ed orevcn when the motion to dism issw astiled by Defendants. Plaintiffstates 28 thatthiswysamereçioversight,''andregisteredwiththeNevadaSecretaryofStatein2010beforefiling itsoppositlon. 4 1 thatthe case should not be transferred to Virginia because itwould be inconvenientfor 2 Plaintifrs principal,M ayer,to travelto Virginia from Nevada to Iitigate the claim s. 3 As w illbe discussed in the follow ing,the Courtfinds thatitis appropriate to transferthis 4 case to the United States DistrictCourtforthe Eastern DistrictofV irginia, 5 6 D ISC USSIO N 28 U.S.C.5 1404(a)provides:''Forthe convenienceofpartiesandwitnesses,inthe 7 interestofjustice,adistrictcourtmaytransferanycivilactiontoanyotherdistrictordivision 8 w here itm ighthave been brought.' According to the United States Suprem e Coul 't,section f) 14O4(a)''isintended toplacediscretioninthedistrictcourtto adjudicate motionsfortransfer 10 according to an dindividualized,case-by-case consideration ofconvenience and fairness.'' lj StewartOrq.,Inc.v.RicohCorp.,487U.S.22,29(lg88ltquotingVan Dusenv.Barrack,376 12 U.S.612,622 (1964)).A motiontotransferundersection 14O4(a)''callsonthe districtcoud 1? to w eigh in the balance a num berofcase-specific factors,' ! #z.IntheNinthCircuit,thefactors 14 to considerinclude:(1)the Iocation where the relevantagreements were negotiated and l5 executed,(2)thestatethatismostfamiliarwiththegoverningIaw,(3)the plaintifrschoiceof 16 forum,(4)the respective parties'contacts with the forum,(5)the contacts relating to the . 17 plaintiff'scause ofaction inthechosenforum,(6)thedifferencesinthe costsoflitigation in )g the two forums,(7)the availabilityofcompulsoryprocessto compelattendance ofunwilling 19 non-pady witnesses,and (8) the ease ofaccess to sources of proof. Jones v.GNC atl Franchising,Incs,211F.3d495,498-99(9thCir,2000),Additionally,'thepresenceofaforum zj selection clause is a 'significantfactor'in the court's section 14O4(a)analysis.' . 1 .(s(citing 22 Stewart,487 U.S.at29). 23 In this case,upon a review ofthe aforementioned factors,the Courtfinds thatthe :4 United States DistrictCourtforthe Eastern DistrictofV irginia is the mostappropriate forum 2j forthis action. Defendants have shown thatVirginia is the mostconvenientforum based on 26 the ease ofaccess to w itnesses and evidence,as wellas the respective parties contacts with gy Virginia. In this regard,itappears thataIIthe relevantw itnesses,besides Plaintiff's principal 2g Mayer,areIocatedinVirginia.Inaddition,thecontractwasexecutedinVirginiaand issubject 5 l to a forum selection clause providing thatclaim s arising underthe Iease agreem entm ay be 2 broughtin the courts ofVirginia. 3 AlthoughPlaintiff'schoiceofforum isNevada,NevadahasIittleinterestinadjudicating 4 the m erits ofthis dispute. First,the parties are notcitizens of N evada,4 Second,Plaintiff 5 concedesthatitapproached Defendants inV irginia to initiate the businesstransaction entered 6 into between the parties. Third ,the helicopteratthe centerofthe Iease agreem entw as not 7 Iocated in Nevada during the contractnegotiations and execution. In fact,the purpose ofthe 8 Iease agreem entw as to finance repairs to the helicopteroccurring in Canada -notNevada.s 9 As such,based on the foregoing,the Coud finds thatforthe convenience ofthe parties l0 andwitnesses,and in the interestofjustice,thiscase should be transferredtothe Eastern 11 DistrictofVirginia, 12 l3 CO NC LUSIO N For the foregoing reasons,IT IS O RDERED that Defendants'M otion to D ism iss for 14 Lack of PersonalJurisdiction,or in the alternative, Motion to TransferVenue (//4) is 15 G RANTED IN PART and DEN IED IN PART. Defendants'm otion to dism iss is denied. 16 Defendants'm otion to transferto the United States DistrictCourtEastern DistrictofVirginia 17 is granted, l8 DATED :This 15'hday ofJuly, 2010. 19 20 nled jtate IstrictJudge 2l 22 23 4plaintifl-claim sthatitisnow acitizenofN evadabecause itsprincipalplace ofbusinessisReno. 24 However,atthetimetheallegedurtlalfuleventsoccurred7PlaintifwasnotreyisteredwiththeNevada Secretary ofStateaseitheran entlty mcorporated in Nevadaoran entity reglstered to do businessin 25 Nevada.Plaintiffdid notregisterwith theNevady Secretary ofStateuntllApril7,2010 -threeweeks afterDefendantsfiledtheirmotiontodismissinthlsmatter.(OppositiontoMotiontoDismiss(#l1)at 26 Ex.l,p.2). 11 5PlaintifrstatcsthatNevadahasaninterestinthesubjectmatterofthislitigationbecausePlaintit: r intendqd to usetheheliqopterip Nevqdaunderagovenunentcontractto fightforestfires. However, 28 yccordlngtothecomplamt,PlamtiffdldnothaveacontractwiththeUnitedStatesForestServiceatthe tlmetheloantransagtionoccurredin2005.(Complaint(#1)at5). ltwasn'tuntil2007 thatPlaintifr ''secured a flre fightlng contractw ith the United States ForestService''to use the helicopter irlthe N evadaregion. Id. 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
