Caldera Holdings LTD v Apollo Global Mgt., LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Caldera Holdings LTD v Apollo Global Mgt., LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 33734(U) December 19, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 652175/2018 Judge: Andrea Masley 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 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 " . I' RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORKCOUN1Y / I INDEX NO. 652175/2018 PRESENT: . PART ·HON. ANDREA MASI EY IAS MOTION 48EFM justice ----------------·-----------------------------------------------------------------X CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD, CALDERA LIFE REINSURANCE COMPANY, CALDERA SHAREHOLDER, L.P., INDEX NO.. · 652175/2018 MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. Pia intiffs, · 003, 004 -vAPOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LL(, APOLLO MANAGEMENT, L.P., APOLLO ADVISORS VIII, L.P., APOLLO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT VIII, LLC, ATHENE ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P., ATHENE HOLDING, LTD., LEON BLACK DECISION + ORDER ON . MOTION. . Defendants. - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- -- -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - - --- -- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- c- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - x MASLEY,J.: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 61., 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,67,68, 82,83,84,85, 86,87, 88,94,95, 104, 106 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80,81,89,90,91,92,93,96,97, 98 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL . I. Background The following facts are alleged in the complaint unless noted otherwise, and for purposes of this motion, accepted as true. Defendant Apollo, consisting of defendants Apollo Global Management, LLC, Apollo Management, L.P., Apollo Advisors VIII, L.P., Apollo Capital Management VIII, LLC, Athene Asset'Management, L.P., and Leon Black (Apollo), manages approximately $248 billion in assets. (NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 54 at~ 22.) Apollo invests in defendant Athene · Holding, Ltd. (Athene), a publicly traded hol~ing company engaged in the business of owning operating subsidiaries that issue, reinsur~ and acquire retirement savings products. (Id. at~~- 23, 24:) Athene employed nonparties Stephen Cernich and lmran Siddiqui, who ultimately left the 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 Page 1of10 'I 1 of 10 . [*FILED: \2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM INDEX NO. 652175/2018 •. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 I company. (Id. at~~ 35, 37, 39.) Siddiqui informed Apollo that he was leaving to start a business, . . plaintiff Caldera Holdings Ltd. (Caldera). (Id. at~~ 40, 41.) Apollo subsequently commenced an arbitration proceeding with JAMS against Siddiqui and his business on January 9, 2018. (Id. at~ 48.) Apollo alleged that Siddiqui was using Apollo and Athene's confidential and proprietary information to compete with Apo I.lo and Athene in violation of Siddiqui's restrictive covenants. (Id. at~ 49.) The parties settled their dispute on February 21, 2018 and memorialized their terms in an agreement (Release). (Id. at~ 54.) As of the date of the Release, Apollo agreed that "any provisions in the Restrictive Covenants prohibiting ... Siddiqui from competing with Apollo or soliciting or interfering with investors shall no longer be in effect." (Id. at~ 55[b].) Subsequently, "[d]efendants contacted both a law firm and a public accounting firm with 0 whom Calder.a had sought an engagement, adv ising both firms that they would lose all business from Apollo and Athene in the event they worked with Caldera." (Id. at~ 59.) Apollo and Athene knew that "one of the insurance assets being vetted by Caldera was a publicly traded company that Apollo and Athene hac;l, years earlier, discussed as a potential acquisition" (Company A). (Id. at~ 60.) Nevertheless, "[d]efendants pressed market participants for information regarding the i.dentity of Caldera's investors in connection with this potential transaction, which was confidential by contract." (Id. at~ 62.) Upon receipt of this information, Leon Black, Apollo's Chief Executive . ~ . Officer, "telephoned those investors with whom he was personally familiar,· including at least two investors who had previously expressed willingness to invest in a transaction to acquire Company A" (Id at~ 63.) During these telephone conversations, which started on May 2, 2018, Black stated that he was "disappointed" in Siddiqui, whose ~onduct he called "unlawful." (Id at~ 63.) Black also "falsely stated in those ., conversations that Caldera's. efforts to acquire Company A were prohibited . because its principal ... [,] Siddiqui, was 'violating his ongoing non-compete."' (Id. at~ 64.) Black "further stated during these calls that Apollo and Athene intended to sue Caldera, ar:id that anyone working with Caldera could expect to be tied up for a considerable time period in a litigation process .... " (Id._ at~ 65.) "[O]ther senior Apollo representatives also contacted Caldera investors parroting ... Black's false claim that Caldera was acting unlawfully in connection with its pursuit of Company A" (Id. at~ 66.) "These Apollo·agents told Caldera's bankers that they must terminate their relationship with Caldera, and if they refused, Apollo and Athene would take their considerable business elsewhere." (Id. at~ 69.) "Defendants undertook these communications in 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 2 of 10 Page 2of10 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM INDEX NO. 652175/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 furtherance of their conspiracy to interfere with Caldera's investor ... with the. objective of eliminating Caldera as a competitor in connection with Athene's efforts to acquire Company A." (Id. at~ 70.) Athene also "approac~ed Company A's representatives with a sham offer ... designed for the purpose ofi~terrupting the momentum that had been achieve by Caldera with Company A", (Id. at ~ 71.) Apollo and Athene pur'sued "sham lawsuits", including a second JAMS arbitration against Siddiqui, 'in which Apollo alleged that Siddiqui and Caldera were using "confidential and proprietary. information" to acquire Company A (Id. at~ 74.) Athene also filed a "Specifically lndorsed Writ of Summons" against Caldera, Siddiqui, and Cernich in the Supreme Court ofBermuda (Bermuda ·Action), (Id. at~ 81.) In the Bermuda Action, Athene claims that Caldera, Siddiqui, Cernich, and an individual by the name of "Messrs" possessed confidential information of At_hene's that they were improperly using to acquire Company A (Id. at~ 86.) As a result of the defendants' conduct, "at least' one specific investor who had pr~viously confirmed its willingness to make a substantial investment in a potential transaction by Caldera to acquire Company A, discontinued all such discussion." (Id. at~ 102.} Calder.:i began "efforts to locate a potential substitute investor or investors.". (Id. at~ 103,) "Caldera's othe.r investors, though presently committed to Caldera, have indicated their uneasiness with moving forward with Caldera without material progress in the Second JAMS Arbitration and the Bermuda Action." (Id. at~ 104.) Allegedly, "Caldera will be forced to withdraw its bid for Company A if it does not replace the one investor it already lost; or if any other investor withdraws its commitment to Caldera." (Id. at~ 1OS-.) Caldera 1 commenced this action against defendants alleging defamation, disparagement, injurious falsehood, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospeetive business relations / and economic advantage, and conspiracy to interfere with prospective business relations and economic advantage. Caldera claims that defendants caused "potential damages to be incurred in the future in the event that [d]efendants are $UCcessful in their efforts to prevent Caldera from competing fairly to acquire Company A" (Id. at~ 122.) Caldera seeks "an award ... of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $1.5 billion." (Id. at~ 23.) . - Although the caption in the amended complaint names three plaint~ffs, it_ appears that the causes of· action are interposed only on behalf of Caldera Holdings Ltd., an entity referenced in the complaint as "Caldera." (NYSCEF 54 at·~ 1.) 1 652175/2018 C.ALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC · Motion No. 003 004 3 of 10 Page 3of10 i l.r=========---------.---~--INDEX NO. 652175/2018 [* 4] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 II. Motion Sequence Number 0042 In motion sequence number 004, Apollo 3 moves to dismi.ss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Caldera opposes. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory." (Leon vMartinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994).) However, factual allegations "that consist of bare legal conclusions, as well as factual claims which are either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence" can·not survive a motion to dismiss. (Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Lacher, 212 AD2d 487, 487 [1st Dept 1995] [citation omitted]; see also CPLR 3211 [a] [1 ].) A Defamation. Disparagement & Injurious Falsehood Here, Caldera fails to state a claim for defamation, disparagement, and injurious falsehood. "[A]lthough defamation and disparagement in the commercial context are allied in that the gravamen of both are falsehoods published to third parties, there is a distinction." (Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 NY2d 663, 670 [1981 ].) 1. Defamation "Making a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion or disgrace constitutes defamation." (Martin v DailyNews L.P., 121 AD3d 90, 99 [1st Dept 2014][internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) 'The ·elements are a false statement, published without privilege or authorization to a third party, constituting fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and it must either cause special harm or constitute defamation per se." (Frechtman v Gutterman, 115 AD3d 102, 104 [1st Dept 2014][internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) "CPLR 3016 (a) requires that in a defamation action, 'the particular words complained of ... be set forth in the complaint.' The complaint must also allege t~e time, place and manner of the false statement and specify to whom it was made." (Dillon v City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38 [1st Dept 1999][citation omitted].) The motions are considered out of order for the sake of brevity. The court notes a discrepancy between the defendants listed in the Amended Complaint's caption, and the defendants listed in the Notice of Motion caption. Whereas the Amended Complaint names "Apollo Capital Management Vlll,·LLC", defendants' Notice of Motion to Di~miss. names "Apollo Capital · · Management, L.P." (Compare NYSCEF 54 and 69.) 2 3 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC · Motion No. 003 004 L 4 of 10 Page 4of10 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 INDEX NO. 652175/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 \... . Here, Caldera alleges that on or about May 2, 2018, Black telephoned "investors" and stated . . I that he wa~ "disappointed" in Siddiqui, who was "violating his ongoing non-compete." (NYSCEF 54 at 'il 63.) ~lack allegedly stated that "Caldera's efforts to acquire Company A were prohibited because its principal ... Siddiqui, was 'violating his ongoing non-compete."' (Id. at 'il. 64.) Caldera claims that it suffered damage for "the additional expenses incurred ... as a result of the lost investor" and "potential damages to be incurred.in the future" should Caldera be prevented from acquiring Company A (Id. at 'il 122.) This defamation claim is inadequately pleaded because Caldera fails to allege the time and place of the false statements. (Dillon, 261 AD2d at 38.) The claim is also inadequately pleaded because Caldera does not specify ;'the persons to whom the publication was . \ made." (Romanello v Intesa Sanpaolo Sp.A., 97 AD3d 449, 455 [1st Dept 2012][citation omitted].) Alleging that Leon Black telephoned "investors" is insufficient. (CS/ Group, LLP v Harper, 153 AD3d 1314, 1320 [2d Dept 2017] [finding that "certain clients" was insufficient for purposes of specifying the personsto whom the defamatory statements were made].) The defamation claim is dismissed. 2. Disparagement & Injurious Falsehood Whereas defamation arises from a statement that "impugns the basic integrity or creditworthiness of a business", disparagement arises from a statement "confined to denigrating the quality of the business' goods or services." (Ruder & Finn, 52 NY2d at 670-671.) A elaim for disparagement requires an allegation of special damages. (Christopher Lisa Matthew Policano, Inc. v North Am. Precis Syndicate, 129 AD2d 488 [1st Dept 1987].) Disparagement "can be seen as a subcategory of the tort of injurious falsehood." (Victor A Kovner and Lance Koonce, New York Practice Series - Commercial Litigation in York State Courts§ 110:8 [4th ed 2019].) The tort of "injurious falsehood requires the knowing publication of false and derogatory facts about the plaintiffs business of a kind calculated to prevent others from dealing with the plaintiff, to its demonstrable detriment." (Banco Popular N. Am. v Lieberman, 75 AD3d 460, 462 [1st Dept 201 OJ[ citation omitted].) The facts must cause special damages, in ·the form of actual lost dealings. (Id.) These special damages, along with the alleged falsehood uttered, must be specified with particularity. (BCRE 230 Riverside LLC v Fuchs, 59 AD3d 282, 283 [1st Dept 2009].) For instance, "general allegations of lost sales from unidentified lost customers" are insufficient to plead special. damages. (Vigoda.v DCA Prods. Plus, 293 AD2d 265, 266 [1st Dept 2002].) "[L]ost future income; conjectural in identity and speculative .in amount" is also insufficient. (Id.) Damages in "round 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 5 of 10 Page 5of10 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 INDEX NO. 652175/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 I I figures with no attempt at itemization, must be deemed to be a representation of general damages" and ·not of special damages. (Drug Research Corp. v Curtis Pub/. Co., 7. NY2d 435, 441 [1960J[citation omitted].) Here, Caldera seeks an award "of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $1.5 billion." (NYSCEF 54 at~ 23.) This round figure with no attempt at itemiz_9tion is deemed to be a representation of general damages and not a representation ofspecial damages. (Drug Research Corp., 7 NY2d at 441.) Accordingly, Caldera's pleading of special ,damages is inadequate. Additionally, Caldera's allegation that defendants caused "potential damages to be incurred in the future in the event that [d]e~endants are successful in their efforts to prevent Caldera from competing fairly to acquire Company A" (NYSCEF 54 at~ 122) is '.'conjectural in identity and speculative in amount." (Vigoda, 293 AD2d at 266.) Because thes.e allegations are also f insufficient to state special damages, Caldera's pleading is inadeqLJate. Lastly, Caldera;s allegations that it incurred "additional expenses ... as a result of the lost,investor" are as conclusory as "a general allegation of losfsales from unidentified lost customers." (Id.) Absent special damages specified with particularity, the disparagement and injurious falsehood claims are dismissed. C. Unfair Competition Caldera fails to state a claim for unfair competition. "We have long recognized two theories / of common-law unfair competition; palming off and misappropriation .. 'Palming off - that is, the sale of the goods of one manufacturer as those of another - was the theory of unfair competition endorsed by New York courts, and 'has b~·en extended ... to situations where th'(_ parties are not even in competition. 111 (ITC v Punchgini, Inc., 9 NY3d 467, 476 [2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) "Under the 'misappropriation theory' of unfair competition, a party is liable if they unfairly exploit 'the skill, expenditures ··.and labors' of a competitor. The essence of the misappropriation theory is not just that the defendant has 'reap[ed] where it has not sown,' but that it has done so in an 1,methical way and thereby unfairly neutralized a commercial advantage that the plaintiff achieved through 'honest labo'r. 111 '· ' (E.J. Brooks Co. v Cambridge Sec. Seals, 31 NY3d 441, 449,[2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) "U.nder New Yor~ law, "[a]n unfair competition claim involving mis_appropriation i I. 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 6 of 10 Page 6of10 [*FILED: 7] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 INDEX NO. 652175/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 usually concerns the taking and use of the plaintiffs property to compete against the plaintiffs own use of the same property." (ITC vPunchgini, Inc., 9 NY3d at 479.) "Allegations of a· 'bad faith misappropriation of a commercial advantage belonging to another by exploitation of proprietary information' can give rise to a cause of action for unfair competition."· (Macy's Inc. v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., 127 AD3d 48, 56 [1st Dept 2015][citation omitted].) For instance, -\ " misappropriation of confidential information concerning customer lists arises when a party steals the list, or misuses a list that is considered to be a trade secret. (2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v OHL Express (USA), Inc., 84 AD3d 697, 698 [1st Dept 2011 J ["the fourth cause of action, for misappropriation of confidential information, fails to allege that DHL stole the information or that plaintiffs took steps to maintain the secrecy of the information"]; Eastern Bus. Sys. vSpecialty Bus. Solutions, 292 AD2d 336, 338 [2d Dept 2002).) There is a greater likelihood that a customer list will be considered a trade secret "[i]n cases where plaintiff secures a customer's patronage through years of effort and advertising." (Metal & Salvage Assn. v Siegel, 121 .AD2d 200, 201 [1st Dept 1986).) However, the plaintiff must allege that it "took sufficient precautionary measures to insure that the information remc:iined secret." (Ed,elman v Starwood Capital Group., LLC, 70 AD3d 246, 249 [1st Dept 2009J[citation omitted].) Indeed, trade secret protection will not attach unless the customers cannot be ascertained outside the plaintiffs business, are not known ,in the trade and are discoverable only by extraordinary efforts. (See Metal & Salvage Assn., 121 AD2d at 201.) Here, Caldera alleges that defendants sought and a_cquired"Caldera confidential information (including the identity of Caldera's actual and potential investors)." (NYSCEF 54 at~ 125.) Caldera does not, however, allege that defendants stole this confidential information including the identities of Caldera's actual and potential investors. (2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc., 84 AD3d at 698.) Caldera also do.es not allege that it "took sufficient precautionary measures to insure that the information remained secret." (Edelman, 70 AD3d at 249.) Significantly, Caldera does not even allege that this information is a trade secret. Caldera patently fails to allege what this confidential information is, other than a list of investors, and it fails to articulate how ·defendants use of this information exploits Caldera's skill, expenditures and labor. Nothing in the complaint indicates that Caldera secured these investors' patronage through ~ears of effort and advertisinK (Metal, 121 AD2d at 201.) Moreover, Caldera does not allege that these investors' identities cannot 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 7 of 10 Page 7of10 [*FILED: 8] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 INDEX NO. 652175/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 • be ascertained outside of Caldera's business, that these investors are not known in the trade or . I that their identities are discoverable only by extraordinary efforts. The unfair competition claim is dismissed. C. Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations and Economic Advantage Caldera fails to state a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations and economic advantage. "A claim for tortious interference with a prospective business. relationship (i.e., an econpmic advantage) must all~ge: (1) the defend~nt's knowledge of a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's intentional interference with the relationship; (3) that the defendant acted by the use of wrongful means or the sole purpose of malice; and (4) resulting injury.to. the business relationship." (534 E. 17th St. House. Dev. Fund Corp. v Hendrick, 90 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2011 ].) "Wrongful means include[s] physical violence, fraud or misrepresentation, civil suits and criminal prosecutions, and some degrees of economic pressure." (Amon Ltd (/OM) v Beierwaltes, 125 AD3d 453, 454-455 [1st Dept 201 5J[internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) Stated otherwise, in a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relationships and economic advantage, the plaintiff ;,must set forth that the claimed interference constituted a crime or an independent tort." (Mitzvah Inc. v Power, 106 AD3d 485, 487 [1st Dept 2013].) "Where the interfering conduct is a civil suit, it must be shown that the suit was 'frivolous'." (Amon Ltd (/OM}, 125 AD3d at 453-454.) Civil suits, even those sufficiently alleged to be frivolous, must be "directed not at the plaintiff itself, but at the party with which the plaintiff has or seeks to have a relationship." (Id. [citation omitted].) Here, Caldera's alleges that the defendants "disparaged and defamed it" after "actively soliciting contractually protected confidential information.''. (NYSCEF 54 ,at~~ 109-11,0.) As previously discussed, Caldera does not sufficiently state a claim for defamation, disparagement, i . injurious falsehood, or unfair competition. Therefore, Caldera fails to allege that the claimed interference constitutes "an independent tort:" (Mitzvah Inc., 106 AD3d at 487.) Without this allegation of an independent tort, Caldera fails to state "wrongful means" sufficient to satisfy the third element of a tortious interference claim. (534 E. 77th St. House. Dev. Fund Corp., 90 AD3d at 542.) The claim, to the extent premised on these allegations, is dismissed. Caldera further premises the tortious interference claim on allegations that defendants "threatened Caldera's investors with legal process in connection with claims that tdJefendants know 1 I 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 I \ J 8 of 10 Page 8of10 [*FILED: 9] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 INDEX NO. 652175/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 are ... without merit." These allegations are insufficient to state a claim. becaus.e they ~re conclusoryand unsupported by specific facts especially concerning Caldera's .unspecified investors. (Steiner Sports Mktg., Inc. v Weinreb, 88 AD3d 482 [1st Dept 2011 J [allegations that "Steiner Sports representatives" had threatened "other potential employers" vvith litigation was conclusory and unsupported by specific facts].) Accordingly, the claim is dismissed to the extent premised on these allegations. Caldera premises the tortious interference claim on allegations that defendants have filed "sham lawsuits ... in New:Vork and Bermuda" against Siddiqui, Cernich, and Messrs. (NYSCEF 54 at ~~ 74, 81, 85, 112.) These allegations are insufficient to state a claim, because even if th.ey are frivolous, Caldera fails to allege that Siddiqui, Cernich, and Mes_srs are the parties with which Caldera "seeks to have a relationship." (Amon Ltd (!OM), 125 AD3d at 454.) Insofar as the claim is premised on these allegations, it is dismissed. Caldera lastly pren:ises the tortious interference claim on allegations that defendants "threatened to cease working with bankers and lawyers that have worked with or h~d hoped to work with Caldera." (NYSCEF 54 at~ 112.) These allegations are insufficient to state a claim I because they "do riot amount to the sort of extreme and unfair 'economic pressure' that mi&ht be 'wrongful."' (Carvel Corp. v Noonan, 3 NY3d 182, 192 [2004).) Indeed, "persuasion alone is not enough to constitute wrongful means." (Ahead Realty LLC v India House, Inc., 92 AD3d 424, 425 [1st Dept 2012][citations omitted].) The claim is dismissed insofar as it is premised on these allegations. Because the claim for tortious interference with business relations and economic advantage is dismissed in its entirety against Apollo, any claim for conspiracy to interfere with prospective business relations and economic advantage is dismissed as well. (Capin & Assoc., Inc., v 599 W. 788th St. Inc., 139 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2016) ["New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for conspiracy to commit a civil tort".).' The court has considered Caldera's remaining arguments, and to the extent properly before the court, they are with~utrmerit. Ill. Motion Sequence Number 003 In motion sequence number 003, defendant Athene moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1 ); (7), and (8). Athene argues that Caldera fails to state a claim largely for the same reasons argued by the other defendants. Athene also argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over it. Caldera opposes. Even if this court has jurisdiction over Athene, Caldera fails to 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 9 of 10 Page 9of10 f [*FILED: 10] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/20/2019 04:18 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111 INDEX NO. 652175/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/20/2019 state a claim for defamation, disparagement, injurious falsehood, unfair competition, and tortious interference for the reasons it failed to state these claims against Apollo. Accordingly, the complaint is·dismissed against Athene. It is ORDERED that motion sequence numbers 003 and 004 to dismiss the complaint herein are granted, and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety as against the defendants, with costs and disbursements to the defendants as taxed by the County Clerk, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of the defendants. Motion Seq. No. 003 \l\rtit\ CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D SETTLE ORDER DENIED !I ' D INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN REFERENCE Motion Seq. No. 004 \d4\"lll CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ANDRk'i..~M·MASL.EY ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D NON-FIH_q~S~1~':"''DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D D . . OTHER REFERENCE I '. 652175/2018 CALDERA HOLDINGS LTD vs. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, LLC Motion No. 003 004 10 of 10 Page 10of10 .

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.