Brembo v TAW

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Brembo v TAW 2018 NY Slip Op 33087(U) November 30, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 654931/17 Judge: Paul A. Goetz Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/03/2018 10:19 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 INDEX NO. 654931/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Paul A. Goetz, JSC PART47 INDEX No. -v- 'r<1'l3/ ·/f1- MOTION SEQ. No. The following papers, numbered 1 to I MOTION DATE _D_0_6___ , were read on this motion t o / f o r - - - - - - - - - - - - - Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - No(s). __\ __ Answering Affidavits - Exhibits No(s). '1:f "3-ti../ Replying Affidavits No(s). S- Defendant T.A.W. Performance LLC moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 to reargue the motion by plaintiff Brembo S.P.A. to dismiss TA W's counterclaims for failure to state a cause of action and the motions by third-party defendants Omnia Racing S.r.l. and Carpimoto S.r.1. to dismiss TA W's third-party complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. By order dated July 2, 2018, this court granted in part Brembo's motion to dismiss TA W's counterclaims and granted in full the third-party defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Pursuant to CPLR 2221 ( d)(3 ), a motion for leave to reargue "shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining the prior motion and written notice of its entry." Here, the notice of entry was served on July 3, 3018, yet TA W's motion to reargue was not filed until August 21, 2018, more than thirty days later. However, an untimely motion to reargue may be considered by the motion court, which "retains ,continuing jurisdiction to reconsider its prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of an action." Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 15, 20 (1986); Garcia v. Jesuits of Fordham, Inc., 6 A.D.3d 163 (1st Dep't 2004). Thus, the court will exercise its discretion and address the merits of TA W's motion. ( CHECK ONE: .............................,........................................ CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................MOTION IS: 0 D Page CASE DISPOSED GRANTED l of 1 of 4 D DENIED _'Y_ ~ON-FINAL DISPOSITION ~RANTED IN PART D OTHER [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/03/2018 10:19 AM r i t NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 INDEX NO. 654931/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Paul A. Goetz, JSC PART 47 INDEX No. -v- 'J-f/'f i l //T= MOTION D A T E - - - - - - MOTION SEQ. No. The following papers, numbered 1 to _6_0____,___ , were read on this motion to/for - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - -.,,..;l'--_ No(s). ?!>3 t Y Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - No(s). Answering Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Replying Affidavits No(s). S-- With respect to Brembo, defendant TA W argues that the court erroneously dismissed its first counterclaim for breach of the 2012 oral agreement and its second counterclaim for fraudulent inducement. The court dismissed the first counterclaim based on TA W's failure to allege any consideration it provided to Brembo in exchange for Brembo' s alleged promise to make TA W its exclusive distributor in the United States. TA W now argues that it did allege such consideration and cites to paragraphs 27-32 of its counterclaims, wherein TAW alleges that Wayne Rodgers, a non-party and its current president, formed TAW and TAW, using Mr. Rodgers's personal funds, purchased TAW Vehicle Concepts, in reliance on Brembo's alleged promises to make TA W the exclusive distributor of its products in the United States. However, Brembo's alleged promises were made to and the alleged detriment was incurred by Mr. Rodgers, and not TA W, the promisee, which did not even exist at the time the exclusive distribution agreement was first discussed. Vista Food Exch. v. BenefitMall, 138 A.D.3d 535, 536 (l st Dep't 2016) ("Consideration sufficient to create a contract consists of either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promise"; internal citations and quotations omitted). Moreover, according to TA W's own pleadings, the alleged oral agreement between TA W and Brembo was entered into in April 2012, after Mr. Rodgers's purchase ofTAW Vehicle Concepts. TAW Verified Answer and ThirdParty Complaint,~ 33 (NYSCEF Doc. # 36). In effect, TA W is attempting to assert the rights of its principal, Mr. Rodgers, a non-party, for his prior purchase of a separate entity, which cannot constitute consideration for TA W's alleged oral agreement with Brembo. In any event, even if TA W did sufficiently allege consideration, the alleged oral agreement to enter into an exclusive distributorship contract was merely an agreement to agree, which is too indefinite to be enforced. Carney v. Carozza, 16 A.D.3d 867 (3d Dep't 2005) ("A contract or stipulation is only enforceable if it is definite as to all material terms; 'a mere agreement to agree' is the future is unenforceable."). CHECK ONE: ...................................................................... CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................ MOTION IS: 0 D Page CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 2- of 2 of 4 crNoN-FINAL DISPOSITION D DENIED ~NTED IN PART D OTHER 'I ---=-- [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/03/2018 10:19 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 INDEX NO. 654931/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Paul A. Goetz, JSC PART 47 INDEX No. -v- (pJ"Y'f 31 / (+ MOTION D A T E - - - - - - MOTION SEQ. No. The following papers, numbered 1 to &o ~ , were read on this motion t o / f o r - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - No(s). _\-___, Answering Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No(s). Replying Affidavits No(s). ~ 3-rl/ S- TA W also argues that the court improperly dismissed the counterclaim for fraudulent inducement because it was duplicative of its breach of contract claim for failure to enforce the exclusivity provision in the contract. In support, TA W relies on Brembo' s alleged promise, which pre-dated the contract, that it would re-offer the exclusive distribution contract to TA W if TA W buys out another Brembo distributor, Y oyodyne Inc., in order to settle Yoyodyne' s lawsuit against Brembo. TA W Verified Answer and ThirdParty Complaint, iJ 60 (NYSCEF Doc. # 36). However, there is no dispute that after TA W purchased Yoyodyne' s assets, Brembo did in fact offer an exclusive distribution contract to TA W and the parties executed an exclusive distribution agreement, which is the basis of TA W's breach of contract claim against Brembo. Id. at i!i! 62-63. Thus, TAW has failed to allege a misrepresentation by Brembo which is extraneous to the contract. In its prior order, the court dismissed TAW's complaint against third-party defendants Omnia Racing S.r.l. and Carpimoto S.r.l., which are Brembo's distributors in Italy, based on lack of personal jurisdiction. In its motion to reargue, TA W argues that its allegations are sufficient to show that facts "may exist" to exercise personal jurisdiction over these parties. These facts include the third-party defendants' interactive websites, which allow Omnia and Carpimoto to sell products internationally, including to consumers in New York, as well as Mr. Rodgers's purchase of a Brembo product from Omnia which was shipped to New York. This is sufficient to warrant limited jurisdictional discovery concerning the third-party defendants' solicitation, sales and revenue from customers in New York State. Ying Jun Chen v. Lei Shi, 19 A.D.3d 407, 408 (2d Dep't 2005) (plaintiffs established "sufficient start" to warrant jurisdictional discovery). CHECK ONE: ...................................................................... CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................ MOTION IS: 0 0 Page CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 3 of 3 of 4 0 l/ [!(t.oN-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED ~RANTED IN PART 0 OTHER [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/03/2018 10:19 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 181 INDEX NO. 654931/2017 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: Hon. Paul A. Goetz, JSC PART 47 INDEX No. -v- ~ J"':tq'b II A1- MOTION D A T E - - - - - - MOTION SEQ. No. The following papers, numbered l to t)Q£ , were read on this motion t o / f o r - - - - - - - - - - - - Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause - Affidavits - E x h i b i t s - - - - - - - - - - - - - No(s). _._\_ _ Answering Affidavits - Exhibits No(s). "'l::t' 3,.. 1t Replying Affidavits No(s). .S- Accordingly, it is ORDERED that TA W's motion to reargue is granted and upon reargument I the court adheres to its prior determinations in its order dated July 2, 2018 which pertain to Brembo but vacates that part of the order which dismissed TA W's third-party complaint against third-party defendants Omnia Racing S.r.I. and Carpimoto S.r.l.; and it is further ORDERED that TAW's third-party complaint against third-party defendants Omnia Racing S.r.I. and Carpimoto S.r.I. is reinstated; and it is further ORDERED that TA W may conduct jurisdictional discovery with respect to the third-party defendants Omnia Racing S.r.I. and Carpimoto S.r.I. which shall be limited to the third-party defendants' solicitation, sales and revenue from customers in New York State; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a compliance conference on February 7, 2019. Dated: Hon~~ 11/30(;~ CHECK ONE: ...................................................................... CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................ MOTION IS: D 0 Page [!('NON-FINAL DISPOSITION CASE DISPOSED GRANTED '-/ of 4 of 4 0 DENIED 'I E1GRANTED IN PART D OTHER

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.