Pazuniak Law Office, LLC, et al. v. Pi-Net International, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE, LLC and GEORGE PUZUNIAK, Plaintiffs, v. PI-NET INTERNATIONAL, INC. and LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. N14C-12-259 EMD ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, Menlo Park, California, Defendant Pro Se. George Pazuniak, Esquire, Pazuniak Law Office LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiffs Pazuniak Law Office, LLC and George Pazuniak. DAVIS, J. Upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Transfer of Jurisdiction (“Motion to Transfer”) filed by Defendant Lakshmi Arunachalam; Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Answering Brief to (i) Defendant’s Motion to Substitute Parties filed on November 12 and December 1, 2014; (ii) Defendant’s Motion for Transfer of Jurisdiction filed on December 1, 2014; (iii) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed on December 5, 2014; (iv) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice filed on December 10, 2014; and (v) Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time filed on November 12 and December 10, 2014 (“Omnibus Response”) filed by Plaintiffs Pazuniak Law Office, LLC and George Pazuniak (collectively, “Pazuniak”); the decision in Arunachalam v. Pazuniak, Case No. 14-CV-05051-JST, 2015 WL 1249877 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2015); Chapter 19 of Title 10 of the Delaware Code, including 10 Del. C. § 1902; the arguments of the parties advanced in the Motion to Transfer and the Omnibus Response; and, the entire record of this civil action: 1. This is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs Pazuniak Law Office, LLC and George Pazuniak (collectively, “Pazuniak Law”). Pazuniak Law seeks declaratory relief as to certain funds held by Puzuniak Law. In addition, Pazuniak Law alleges that Defendants Pi-Net International, Inc. (“Pi-Net”) and Lakshmi Arunachalam are liable to Pazuniak Law on claims of common law libel and tortuous interference with prospective business opportunities. 2. Through the Motion to Dismiss, Dr. Arunachalam seeks to have this civil action transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. Case No. 14-CV-05051-JST (the “California Federal Action”). 3. On or about March 17, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting a motion to transfer filed by Mr. Pazuniak. See Arunachalam v. Pazuniak, Case No. 14-CV-05051-JST, 2015 WL 1249877, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2015). The United States District Court for the Northern District of California then transferred the California Federal Action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. See id. 4. Dr. Arunachalam makes general arguments regarding (i) the avoidance of piecemeal litigation; (ii) that the California Federal Action will resolve all matters in dispute; (iii) the California Federal Action involves more parties than this civil action; and (iv) judicial economy would be advanced by having this civil action litigated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. However, Dr. Arunachalam does not provide any statutory basis or Delaware decision that supports the idea that this Court has the authority to 2 transfer this civil action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California or, for that matter, any United States District Court. 5. The Court finds that the Motion to Dismiss fails to demonstrate cause for the relief sought. The Court does not have the statutory power, under 10 Del. C. § 1902 or any other provision in the Delaware Code, to transfer this civil action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Moreover, the California Federal Action has already been transferred to the District of Delaware. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons set forth herein, that the Defendant’s Motion for Transfer of Jurisdiction is DENIED. Dated: June 30, 2016 Wilmington, Delaware /s/ Eric M. Davis Eric M. Davis, Judge 3

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.