Grimm v. Allen

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action Docket No. CV-05-767 - STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss - T p - , L ' , l ' v . - 'J , v ' 3 :-.!J5,, CHRISTOPHER GRIMM, ARTHUR G R I M and ACCESS MAINE STREET #I, LLC, Plaintiffs v. DECISION AND ORDER ROY ALLEN, BTG ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., ENDEAVOR FOUNDATION, INC., HSTI a / k / a HEADHUNTER SPA TECH INSTITUTE, and KRIS STECKER, OONAI.D L. GARBRECHT LAW LIBRARY OCT 2 7 2006 Defendants I. BEFORE THE COURT Defendants, Career Management Services, Inc.; Headhunter I1 School of Hair Design, Inc.; and Kris Stecker move to dismiss h s action against them for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on multiple counts. 11. BACKGROUND Christopher and Arthur Grimm have filed a complaint1 alleging eight causes of action: - Count I, breach of contract by Roy Allen ("Allen"); - Count 11, breach of contract by Endeavor Foundation, Inc. ("Endeavor"); - Count 111, breach of contract by Career Management Services, Inc. ("CMS" ); 1 The amended complaint filed on April 4,2006 is the operative pleading. - Count IV, breach of contract by Kris Stecker ("Stecker"); - Count V, unjust enrichment against BTG Administrative Services, LLC ("BTG"); - Count VI, unjust enrichment against CMS; - Count VII, unjust enrichment against Stecker; and, - Count VIII, unjust enrichment against HSTI Spa Tech Institute, Inc. ("Spa Tech"). Defendants CMS, HSTI and Stecker have filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)and for failure to state a claim, M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). This case arises from an investment made by the plaintiffs, Arthur and Christopher Grimm. Allen solicited an investment from Christopher Grimm on behalf of Endeavor, CMS and Spa Tech. Am. Compl. at ¶ 23. According to the amended complaint the Grimms loaned $300,000 to Access Maine, a company created at the direction of Allen as an investment vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 21, 26, 30-31. The loan was to be secured by a promissory note and a royalty finance agreement with CMS and Spa Tech. Id. at P[ 27. The three members of Access Maine were the two Grimms and Robert Godfrey. Id. at ql 21. Godfrey was allegedly hired by Allen to set up and act as the president of BTG. Id. at ¶ 14. Allen acted as BTG's Chief Financial Officer. Id. at ¶ 11. Allen also was the executive director of a third company, Endeavor, whch acted as a management company for CMS and Spa Tech. Id. Allen was acting within the scope of his employment at CMS when he entered into the participation agreement with the plaintiffs. Id. at ¶ 27. Godfrey was named the manager of Access Maine. Id. at P[ HSTI, Headhunter Spa Tech Institute and Spa Tech Institute are the same entity and are labeled "Spa Tech" for the purposes of this memorandum. 2 21. At Allen's direction, Godfrey transferred approximately $280,000 invested by the Grimm's in Access Maine to BTG. Id. at ¶ 31. Allen then directed Godfrey to write checks from BTG to pay payroll expenses for CMS and Spa Tech, Stecker's personal tax obligations and expenses incurred by companies managed by Endeavor. Id. at ¶¶ 33-36. BTG, CMS and Spa Tech made some loan repayments totaling approximately $18,000. Id. at ¶ 38. The Grimms never received the promissory note or the royalty agreement that they allegedly were promised. Id. at ¶ 39. 111. DISCUSSION A. Personal Jurisdiction Over CMS (Counts I11 and VI) Under Maine's long arm statute, 14 M.R.S.A. 704-A (2005), and due process requirements, this State may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the court finds: "(1)Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the litigation; (2) the defendant, by [his] own conduct, reasonably could have anticipated litigation in Maine; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction by Maine's courts comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, ¶ 14, 861 A.2d 662, justice." Commerce Bank 13 666 (citations omitted). After the plaintiff has proven the first two prongs, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that by exercising personal jurisdiction the court is violating traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id. "The record is construed in the manner most favorable to the plaintiff." Bickford v. Onslow Mem'l Hosp. Fund, 2004 ME 111, ¶ 10, 855 A.2d 1150,1155. To demonstrate that Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the litigation, a plaintiff must assert more than a mere interest "in providing a Maine resident with a forum for redress against a nonresident." Murphy v. Keenan, 667 A.2d 591, 594 (Me. 1995). The state has "an interest in regulating and/or sanctioning parties who reach out beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with Maine citizens for the consequences of their activities." Elec. Media Int'l v. Pioneer Communications, 586 A.2d 1256, 1259 (Me. 199l)(citationsomitted). Here, the plaintiffs allege funds for CMS were solicited from the plaintiffs. Am. Compl. at ql 23. As part of the investment and at the direction of CMSfs agent, the plaintiffs started a Maine company, Access Maine. Id. at ¶ 19 & 21. Some of the funds invested in that company were diverted to CMS. Id. at ql 33. The plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts permitting the court to find that Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter due to CMS's intentionally entering into business relationshps with the plaintiffs in the State of Maine. In order to demonstrate that the defendant should have reasonably expected litigation in Maine, the defendant must show that the nonresident defendant "purposely directs his activities at residents of" Maine by "deliberately engagng in significant activities" in this state or by "creating continuing obligations between hmself and residents of" Maine. Harriman v. Demoulas Supermarkets, Inc., 518 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Me. 1986)(quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475). The plaintiff has alleged that CMS transacted business with the plaintiffs in the State of Maine including entering a contract with Endeavor, a Maine company, in which it purports to have business locations in Maine, agrees to be bound by Maine law and in w h c h it contracts to have its operations and financial affairs managed by Endeavor. Am. Compl. at ¶ 19 and Ex. A. The plaintiffs' claim that money they invested in Access Maine was improperly conveyed to CMS. Id. at ¶ 33. The plaintiffs allege that they were told that the plaintiffs' investment was secured by CMS. Id. at 725. Construing the record in the favor of the plaintiff, it appears that CMS sought out relationshps with multiple Maine companies and residents and in doing so faces the consequences of those relationshps in Maine courts. Finally, the defendant has the burden of proving that if Maine exercises jurisdiction it would not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. CMS denies the plaintiffs' allegations and argues that it should not be held responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries. However, the plaintiffs' have claims against CMS, not just its subsidiaries. CMS also claims that it has no business relationshps in Maine. The facts alleged by plaintiffs show that CMS did at some point have business relationshps with the plaintiffs in Maine. CMS has not provided a compelling reason that shows it is unfair or unjust for the court to exercise jurisdiction over it in this case. B. Failure to State a Claim (Counts 111, IV, VI, VII, and VIII) 1. Standard of Review When reviewing a Motion to Dismiss based on a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court examines the complaint "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept[s] the material facts of the complaint as true." Davric Me. COT. v. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., 2000 ME 102, ¶6, 751 A.2d 1024, 1028 (citations omitted); Moody v. State Liquor ¬ Lottery Comm'n, 2004 ME 9 20, ¶ 7, 843 A.2d 43, 46. A court should dismiss the action only if "it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that [the plaintiff] might prove to support [their] claim." Moody, 2004 ME 20 91 7, 843 A.2d at 47 (internal citation omitted). If on a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)"matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56 . . .parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to such a motion." M.R. Civ. P. 12(b). Attached to the plaintiff's response to the motion are a number of exhibits that support the factual allegations in the complaint and in their response memorandum of law. These exhibits are excluded as irrelevant and are not considered by the court since the motion concerns only the sufficiency of the pleadings. 2. Breach of Contract The plaintiffs' breach of contract claims arise from an agreement executed by them and by Allen who plaintiffs1 allege was acting as an employee of CMS and on behalf of Stecker. The plaintiffs1 argue that by accepting money from them, Stecker and CMS ratified the agreement signed by Allen. An agency relationship results "from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on 1-usbehalf and subject to h s control, and consent by the other so to act." Desfosses v. Notis, Me., 333 A.2d 83, 86 (1975). "Maine applies the Restatement (Second) of Agency to determine the limits of imposing vicarious liability on an employer. . . section 228 of the Restatement provides that a master may be vicariously liable for the actions of its agent when the agent's conduct was within the 'scope of employment'." Mahar v. Stonewood Transport, 2003 ME 63, ¶¶ 13-14, 823 A.2d 540, 544 (2003)(citationsomitted). Conduct is within the scope of employment when it meets three criteria: "(a) it is of the kind he is employed to perform; (b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (c) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master." Restatement (Second) of Agency 5 228(1). The existence of an agency relationship "is generally a question of fact." QAD Investors, Inc. v. Kelly, 2001 ME 116, ¶ 18,776 A.2d 1244,1249. a. Count III Count 111 concerns a breach of contract claim by the plaintiffs against CMS. The basis of that claim is that Allen was working within the scope of his employment at CMS when he signed the participation agreement and that CMS is vicariously liable for the actions for Allen. The amended complaint alleges that Allen was the Chief Financial Officer of CMS. Amend. Comp. ¶ 12. That Allen was working w i h n his scope of employment and as CMS's agent when the Participation Agreement with the Grimms was executed. Id. q[ 51-52. The plaintiffs' also allege that provisions of the participation agreement were breached. Id. q[ 39. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges sufficient facts, that if proven would entitle them to relief under a theory of breach of contract. b. Count IV The standard to pierce the corporate veil is that (1)the defendant abused the privilege of a separate corporate identity; and (2) an unjust or inequitable result would occur if the court recognized the separate corporate existence. Johnson v. Exclusive Properties Unlimited, 1998 ME 244, q[ 6, 720 A.2d 568,571. Count IV concerns a breach of contract claim against Kris Stecker based on the fact that Stecker is the owner and sole shareholder of CMS. Amend Comp. ¶ 55-56. The complaint alleges that Stecker did not respect a separate corporate entity and that he used CMS funds to pay personal obligations. Id. ¶ 58. The plaintiff also alleges that the participation agreement executed by Allen was made on behalf of CMS and that Stecker was involved in CMS's negotiations. Id. 51 & 57. The plaintiffs argue that because Stecker was aware that the money he appropriated from CMS to pay his tax obligations came from the plaintiffs' investment and he was involved in soliciting that investment, he should be held personally liable for the breach of the participation agreement. The plaintiffs' complaint set forth sufficient allegations that if proved by plaintiff may compel a court to pierce the corporate veil and hold Stecker personally liable for the breach of the participation agreement. 3. Unjust Enrichment To sustain a claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs must prove "that [they] conferred a benefit on the other party appreciation or knowledge of the benefit . ... that the other party had . . and . . . that the acceptance or retention of the benefit was under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for it to retain the benefit without payment of its value." Forrest Assocs. v. Passamaquoddy Tribe, 2000 ME 195, ¶ 14,760 A.2d 1041,1046 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted). "Unjust enrichment describes recovery for the value of the benefit retained when there is no contractual relationship." In re Wage Payment Litig. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2000 ME 162, 91 19, 759 A.2d 217, 224 (internal quotations omitted) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). a . Count VI Count VI asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against CMS based on funds from the Grimms' investment that were used to pay CMS1stax obligations. Amend Comp. ¶ 66. The plaintiffs claim that CMS benefited from the plaintiff's loan and it would be inequitable for CMS to retain the benefit. Id. ¶ 68. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, it may be inferred that CMS appreciated or had knowledge of the benefit that plaintiffs claim to have conferred upon CMS. The plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to set forth an unjust enrichment claim against CMS. b. Count VII Count VII asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against Stecker. The plaintiffs allege funds supplied by them were used to pay Stecker's personal tax obligations. Amend. Comp. 9 71. It can be inferred from the pleadings that [ Stecker was aware that he retained a benefit from having h s taxes paid. The plaintiffs claim that Stecker failed to repay them and that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit. Id. at 72-73. The plaintiffs' complaint sets forth sufficient facts alleging unjust enrichment on the part of Stecker. c. Count VIII Count VIII asserts a claim of unjust enrichment by Spa Tech. The plaintiffs allege that Spa Tech benefited from the loan made by plaintiffs and that they were solicited to invest in Spa Tech and induced to invest based on representations that Spa Tech would provide collateral to support the loan. Amend. Comp. ¶ 25. The plaintiffs claim that Spa Tech received funding from [ their loan and thereby benefited. Id. 9 76. Spa Tech is also alleged to have inequitable retained this benefit and never provided repayment or security to the plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 77-78. If the plaintiffs prove the facts alleged in their complaint they will likely recover from Spa Tech on a theory of unjust enrichment. IV. DECISION AND ORDER The clerk will make the following entries as the Decision and Order of the court: A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts 111 and IV on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. B. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts 111, IV, VI, VII and VIII for failure to state a claim upon whch relief can be granted is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2006 CHRISTOPHER GRIMM - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss . Docket No PORSC-CV-2005-00767 Attorney for: CHRISTOPHER GRIMM JOSEPH L GOODMAN - RETAINED 12/28/2005 THE GOODMAN LAW FIRM, PA 392 FORE STREET PO BOX 7523 PORTLAND ME 04112 DOCKET RECORD ARTHUR GRIMM - PLAINTIFF ACCESS MAINE STREET #I, LLC - PLAINTIFF vs ROY ALLEN - DEFENDANT 263 HOWLAND AVE, ROCHESTER NY 14620 BTG ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC - DEFENDANT CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC - DEFENDANT ENDEAVOR FOUNDATION, INC. - DEFENDANT HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC. - DEFENDANT I Attorney for: HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC. ROBERT MITTEL - RETAINED 03/14/2006 MITTEL ASEN LLC 85 EXHANGE ST, FLOOR 4 PO BOX 427 PORTLAND ME 04112-0427 KRIS STECKER - DEFENDANT Attorney for: KRIS STECKER ROBERT MITTEL - RETAINED 03/14/2006 MITTEL ASEN LLC 85 EXHANGE ST, FLOOR 4 PO BOX 427 PORTLAND ME 04112-0427 Filing Document : COMPLAINT Filing Date: 12/27/2005 Minor Case Type: CONTRACT Docket Events: 12/27/2005 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 12/27/2005 WITH SUMMARY SHEET. AD 12/28/2005 Party (s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 12/28/2005 Plaintiff's Attorney: JOSEPH L GOODMAN 03/09/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON 03/08/2006 03/09/2006 Party(s1 : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2005-00767 DOCKET RECORD SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE SERVED ON 02/24/2006 UPON DEFENDANT HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE TO CINDY PLOURDE (JBG). 03/10/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 03/09/2006 OF PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS {TO THE COMPLAINT)(ORIGINALLY OMITTED; PLACED BEHIND COMPLAINT) (JBG). 03/20/2006 Party(s): HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 03/14/2006 OF DEFS SPA TECH AND STECKER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM (DC) 03/20/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION SERVICE BY PUBLICATION FILED ON 03/15/2006 3-27-06 OF PLAINTIFFS WITH EXHIBITS A & B (DC) PROPOSED ORDER 4-5-06 PROPOSED ORDER 03/20/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 03/15/2006 OF PLAINTIFFS TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT INCLUDING BY PUBLICATION WITH EXHIBITS A, B & C (DC) 03/21/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON 03/20/2006 03/21/2006 Party (s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM, ARTHUR GRIMM, ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE SERVED ON 03/08/2006 UPON DEFENDANT KRIS STECKER (JBG). 03/21/2006 Party(s1 : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE FILED ON 03/20/2006 03/21/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - PROOF OF SERVICE SERVED ON 03/16/2006 UPON DEFENDANT CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. TO KRIS STECKER (JBG). 03/24/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 03/20/2006 PAUL A FRITZSCHE , JUSTICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT INCLUDING BY PUBLICATION IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF HAS THROUGH AND UNTIL 5-22-06 TO COMPLETE SERVICE. COPY MAILED JOSEPH GOODMAN ESQ ON 3-24-06 (DC) 04/19/06 COPY MAILED TO ROBERT MITTEL, ESQ. (JBG). 04/05/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING FILED ON 04/04/2006 OF PLAINTIFFS WITH ATTACHMENTS AND AGREED-TO PROPOSED ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (DC) 04/05/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 04/04/2006 PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE Printed on: 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 6 PORSC-CV-2005-00767 DOCKET RECORD STATEMENT (DC) 04/05/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON 04/04/2006 OF PLAINTIFFS WITH EXHIBITS A-G (DC) 04/14/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING GRANTED ON 04/07/2006 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 4-14-06 COPY MAILED TO JOSEPH GOODMAN AND ROBERT MITTEL ESQS 04/14/2006 ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 04/14/2006 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE PL. HAS FILED A MOTION TO SERVE DEFENDANTS, ALLEN AND CAREER MGT SERV. BY PUBLICATION. BEFORE THE MOTION WILL BE GRANTED, PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO MAKE A SHOWING THAT SUFFICIENT EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE AND SERVE ALLEN PERSONALLY AT A RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, NOT JUST HIS FORMER OFFICE ADDRESS AN TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER THAT COMPLIES WITH RULE 4 (G)(I) (111) PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED ORDER DID NOT MAKE PROVISION FOR MAILING A COPY OF THE ORDER TO DEFENDANTS AT THEIR LAST KNOW ADDRESS. THAT HAS BEEN REMEDIED BUT THE REMAINING REQUIREMENTS OF 4(G) (2) HAVE NOT YET BEEN SATISIFIED. COPY MAILED TO JOSEPH GOODMAN AND ROBERT MITTEL ESQS 04/14/2006 Party(s): HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC. ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/14/2006 Defendant's Attorney: ROBERT MITTEL Party ( s) : KRIS STECKER ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/14/2006 Defendant's Attorney: ROBERT MITTEL 04/14/2006 Party(s): HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 04/07/2006 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPIES TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 04/21/2006 Party(s): CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO ADMIT VISIT. ATTY FILED ON 04/20/2006 OF CAREERE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMENTS, INC; SPA TECH INC. AND KRIS STECKER TO ALLOW THOMAS G. NICHOLSON TO PRACTICE IN THIS COURT FOR THIS CASE WITH CERTIFICTION OF VISITING ATTORNEY (GM) 04/24/2006 ASSIGNMENT - SINGLE JUDGE/JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ON 04/24/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE 05/16/2006 Party(s): CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED ON 05/12/2006 OF DEFENDANTS, CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., HEADHUNTER I1 SCHOOL OF HAIR DESIGN, INC. AND KRIS STECKER TO DISMISS COUNTS 111, IV, VII AND VIII OF THE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED C0MPLAINT;MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS, CAREER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., HEADHUNTER I1 SCHOOL OF HAIR DESIGN, INC., AND KRIS STECKER TO DISMISS COUNTS 111, IV, VII AND VIII OF THE PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT; AFFIDAVIT OF KRIS STECKER. AD 05/18/2006 Party(s): HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRISSTECKER Page 3 of 6 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2005-00767 DOCKET RECORD LETTER - FROM PARTY FILED ON 05/18/2006 FROM ROBERT MITTEL, ESQ. ENCLOSING THEIR CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $200.00 TO COVER THE FEE FOR THE ADMISSIONS OF TOM NICHOLSON AS A VISITING ATTORNEY. AD 05/23/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 05/19/2006 OF PLAINTIFFS, CHRISTOPHER GRIMM, ARTHUR GRIMM, AND ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT INCLUDING BY PUBLICATION WITH ATTACHMENTS. AD 05/24/2006 Party(s): CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO ADMIT VISIT. ATTY GRANTED ON 05/19/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY II, JUSTICE MOTION GFSNTED; SUBJECT TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF M.R.CIV.P.89(B). AD 05/26/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 05/25/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE COMPLAINT INCLUDING BY PUBLICATION IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF HAS THROUGH AND UNTIL JULY 22, 2006 TO COMPLETE SERVICE. ON 5-19-06 COPIES MAILED TO ROBERT MITTEL, ESQ. AND JOSEPH GOODMAN, ESQ. AD 06/01/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED ON 05/30/2006 OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. 06/01/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 05/30/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS GFSNTED. PLAINTIFF HAS THROUGH AND UNTIL JUNE 9, 2006 TO FILE AN ANSWER. ON 06-01-06 COPIES MAILED TO JOSEPH GOODMAN, ESQ. AND ROBERT MITTEL, ESQ. 06/06/2006 Party ( s ) : ROY ALLEN RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER FILED ON 06/05/2006 OF DEFENDANT ROY ALLEN (PRO SE) (DC) 06/12/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC OTHER FILING - REPLY MEMORANDUM FILED ON 06/09/2006 OF PLAINTIFFS, CHRISTOPHER GRIMM, ARTHUR GRIMM, AND ACCESS MAINE STREET #1 LLC ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW WITH EXHIBITS A THRU F. AD 06/13/2006 Party(6): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 06/13/2006 06/13/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 05/19/2006 UPON ROY ALLEN (GM) 06/16/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE FILED ON 06/12/2006 Page 4 of 6 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2005-00767 DOCKET RECORD 06/16/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SERVED ON 05/19/2006 UPON DEFENDANT, ROY ALLEN. AD 06/29/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 06/29/2006 06/29/2006 Party(s): CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 06/19/2006 UPON DEFENDANTS BTG ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND ENDEAVOR FOUNDATION TO ROY ALLEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. (DY) 08/02/2006 Party(s) : CHRISTOPHER GRIMM,ARTHUR GRIMM,ACCESS MAINE STREET #1, LLC MOTION - MOTION SERVICE BY PUBLICATION OTHER DECISION ON 05/25/2006 PLEASE SEE ORDER OF MAY 25, 2006. THEY HAVE UNTIL JULY 22, 2006 TO FILE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION. AD 08/24/2006 Party(s): CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED ON 08/23/2006 OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CONTINUE. AD 08/25/2006 Party(s) : CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 08/24/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE MOTION GRANTED. RESCHEDULE TO OCTOBER 12, 2006. ON 08-25-06 COPIES MAILED TO JOSEPH GOODMAN, ESQ. AND ROBERT MITTEL, ESQ.AD 10/12/2006 HEARING - MOTION TO DISMISS HELD ON 10/10/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE Plaintiff's Attorney: JOSEPH L GOODMAN ON DEFENDANTS, CAREER MANANGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., HEADHUNTER I1 SCHOOL OF HAIR DESIGN, INC. AND KRIS STECKER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 111, IV, VI, VII AND VIII. NO RECORD MADE. ROBERT MITTELL, ESQ. PRESENT FOR CAREER, HTSI SPA, STECKER. THOMAS NICHOLSON, ESQ. PRESENT FOR CAREER, HTSI SPA, STECKER. 10/12/2006 Party(s): CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 10/10/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE Plaintiff's Attorney: JOSEPH L GOODMAN COURT TAKES MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT. NO RECORD MADE. ROBERT MITTELL, ESQ. PRESENT FOR CAREER, HTSI SPA, STECKER. THOMAS NICHOLSON, ESQ. PRESENT FOR CAREER, HTSI SPA, STECKER. 10/16/2006 Party(s): CAREER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC,HTSI SPA TECH INSTITUTE, INC.,KRIS STECKER MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED ON 10/16/2006 THOMAS E DELAHANTY 11, JUSTICE THE CLERK WILL MAKE THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES AS THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT: A. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS I11 AND IV ON GROUNDS OF LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS DENIED. B. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS, 111, IV, VI, VII AND VIII FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED IS DENIED. SO ORDERED. ON 10-16-06 COPIES MAILED TO ROBERT MITTEL, JOSEPH GOODMAN, ESQS, MS. DEBORAH FIRESTONE, GOSS MIMEOGRAPH, DONALD GARBRECHT LAW LIBRARY AND LOISLAW.COM, INC. Page 5 of 6 Printed on: 10/16/2006 PORSC-CV-2005-00767 DOCKET RECORD A TRUE CO ATTEST : Page 6 of 6 Printed on: 10/16/2006

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.