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.

Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equipment Sales, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 8, 2017

GYM DOOR REPAIRS, INC. ET AL. Plaintiffs,
v.
YOUNG EQUIPMENT SALES, INC. ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN G. KOELTL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The pending motion to dismiss by the defendant, the Eastern Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services (the “ESBOCES”), seeks to dismiss the First Supplemental and Third Amended Complaint Against ESBOCES (the “TAC”) filed by the plaintiffs, Gym Door Repairs, Inc. (“GDRI”), and Safepath Systems LLC.

         In an Amended Opinion and Order dated September 9, 2016, this Court granted in part and denied in part the ESBOCES' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”). Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., No. 15-CV-4244 (JGK), 2016 WL 4747281 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2016) (Gym Door I); see also Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., No. 15-CV-4244 (JGK), 2016 WL 4742317, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2016) (Gym Door II) (denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction). Specifically, this Court in Gym Door I granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims for patent infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition, and civil conspiracy, but denied the motion with respect to the claim for copyright infringement. Id. at *31.

         In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 10, 2016, this Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the grant of the dismissal of their claims against the ESBOCES for tortious interference with business relationships and civil conspiracy, but granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend (or supplement) the SAC to add new allegations that, the plaintiffs argued, would suffice to state those claims against the ESBOCES. Gym Door Repairs, Inc. v. Young Equip. Sales, Inc., No. 15-CV-4244 (JGK), 2016 WL 6652733, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2016) (Gym Door III). This Court held that amendment (or supplementation) was warranted under the liberal standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 because it could not be said that the addition of new allegations directed against the ESBOCES would be futile. Id. at *4.

         The TAC followed. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss the TAC is granted in part and denied in part.

         I.

         The allegations in the TAC are accepted as true for purposes of this motion to dismiss. For the purposes of this motion, the parties' familiarity with the standard of review to be applied on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the facts, procedural history, and underlying claims is presumed. See Gym Door I, 2016 WL 4747281, at *1-4.

         The TAC is designed to defeat the ESBOCES' statute of limitations defense. To state a claim, the allegations must point to tortious acts that occurred on or after March 4, 2014. See Gym Door I, 2016 WL 4747281, at *22.

         At its heart, the TAC includes three new allegations. First, the TAC alleges that, on May 23, 2014, Gregory Gucerio of the law firm Gucerio & Gucerio LLP wrote a letter on behalf of the ESBOCES (the “Gucerio Letter”) to several state agencies that was (only superficially) designed to update the agencies about the plaintiffs' allegations of fraud, but that had “the effect of quelling the investigations” by those agencies because the Letter neglected to mention the ESBOCES' participation in the fraud or that the fraud remained ongoing. TAC ¶¶ 78-79; see also Kleinberg Decl., Ex. D (The Gucerio Letter).

         Second, the TAC alleges that, in the summer of 2015, the ESBOCES issued a bid request for inspection, maintenance and repair of basketball backstops and bleachers (the “2015-2016 Bid Request”). TAC ¶ 80. GDRI and two competitors --- the Nickerson Corporation (“Nickerson”) and the defendant Young Equipment Sales, Inc. --- were allegedly the only companies to respond to the 2015-2016 Bid Request. TAC ¶ 80. The TAC alleges that GDRI should have won the bid because GDRI had the lowest bid, and because “Young [Equipment Sales, Inc.] and Nickerson were under investigation for the misuse of subcontractors” by the New York Department of Labor. TAC ¶ 81. Rather than award the bid to GDRI, the TAC alleges that on November 19, 2015, the ESBOCES withdrew the 2015-2016 Bid Request, “an action smacking of retaliation.” TAC ¶ 82.

         Finally, the TAC alleges that the ESBOCES has aided the Young defendants' scheme to poach the plaintiffs' business with school districts since 2011 by “repeatedly accepting falsified documents” as part of the Young defendants' bid packages, and nevertheless awarding the bids to the Young defendants even though the ESBOCES had “full knowledge of Young's malfeasance.” TAC ¶¶ 76, 94, 108. The TAC alleges that the fraudulent documents included “fake listings for partition door and safety system components and labor.” TAC ¶¶ 35-36. The TAC alleges that the Young defendants used the bids awarded by the ESBOCES to win the plaintiffs' business from school districts. See TAC ¶¶ 40, 75, 89, 110.

         The TAC includes allegations (mostly related to conduct that occurred before May 2014) to show that the ESBOCES knew that the documents were falsified, and that the ESBOCES has been actively conspiring with the Young defendants. For example, the TAC alleges that the fraudulent nature of the documents would be obvious to ESBOCES employees due to clerical errors and other inconsistencies in the documents. See ¶¶ TAC 51-53, 76-77. The TAC also alleges that, since 2011, the plaintiffs have repeatedly alerted the ESBOCES to the Young defendants' misconduct, including by explicitly warning the ESBOCES in August 2012 that the bid documents were falsified. TAC ¶¶ 43, 53-54, 65-66, 70. The TAC alleges that the ESBOCES has inexplicably ignored the plaintiffs' warnings. See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 54, 57, 66.

         II.

...


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.