Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marlin Bus. Bank v. Halland Cos., LLC

United States District Court, E.D. New York

May 7, 2014

MARLIN BUSINESS BANK, Plaintiff,
v.
THE HALLAND COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant. THE HALLAND COMPANIES, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW FENTON, NEWPORT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. and LONG ISLAND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., Third-Party Defendants

For the Plaintiff: Peter Bradley Foster, Esq., Bryan E. Wolkind, Esq., Of Counsel, Foster & Wolkind, P.C., New York, NY.

For the Defendant: Stephen R. Stern, Esq., Sloan Jessica Zarkin, Esq., Of Counsel, Law Offices of Stephen R. Stern, P.C., Melville, NY.

NO APPEARANCES: The Third Party Defendants Andrew Fenton, Newport Business Solutions, Inc., Long Island Business Solutions, Inc.

OPINION

Page 240

DECISION AND ORDER

ARTHUR D. SPATT, United States District Judge.

On March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff Marlin Business Bank (the " Plaintiff" ) commenced this action against the Defendant the Halland Companies, LLC (the " Defendant" ) in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, alleging a breach of an equipment lease agreement.

The following facts are drawn from the complaint. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a commercial bank charted by the State of Utah and a member of the Federal Reserve System, with an office in Philadelphia County. Among other things, the Plaintiff is a direct lender providing financing to businesses so that they can acquire new equipment and technology.

Upon the Plaintiff's information and belief, the Defendant is a New York limited liability company.

On September 12, 2012, the Defendant executed and delivered an Equipment Lease Contract (the " Lease" ), which provided for the lease and hire of certain items of equipment and provided for payments to be made by the Defendant. The Lease contained a forum selection clause under paragraph 18 which reads as follows:

You hereby acknowledge that this Agreement was accepted by us in Pennsylvania, where we maintain an office, and it did not take effect until we received the executed legal documents in our Pennsylvania office. Accordingly, you agree that this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. You agree that any suit relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in a state or federal court in Pennsylvania, and you irrevocably consent and submit to the jurisdiction of such courts. Each party waives any right to a jury trial.

(Compl, at ¶ 9.)

On April 14, 2014, the Defendant removed this case pursuant to U.S.C. § 1441(b) to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff moved for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1447(c) remanding this case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and awarding the Plaintiff costs and attorneys' fees ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.