EURO RSCG Direct Response, LLC v. Green Bullion Financial Services, LLC
0:11-cv-61975
S.D. Fla.May 14, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Euro RSCG Direct Response LLC sues Green Bullion Financial Services f/k/a Cash4Gold and related defendants for over $2.5 million in unpaid advertising services from three agreements.
- Plaintiff provided media purchasing, Superbowl ads, and other direct television advertising for Green Bullion between 2007–2010.
- Defendants allegedly diverted Mangrove III US Investments funds to insiders, rendering Green Bullion insolvent
- Plaintiff seeks to avoid insider transfers under UCC/fraudulent transfer theories and asserts fraud, open account, and account stated claims
- Defendants move to dismiss, strike, or demand more definite statements; the court rules on these motions and fees
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts II–V require a Rule 12(e) more definite statement | Euro RSCG argues counts are adequately pleaded and discovery will clarify terms | Green Bullion contends missing credit terms render counts vague | Count II–V not requiring a more definite statement |
| Whether Count VI is barred by the economic loss rule | Fraud in the inducement relates to separate services beyond three contracts | Economic loss bars tort claims arising from contract performance | Count VI dismissed as to claims tied to three Agreements; preserved for separate services |
| Whether Counts VII–VIII fraudulently transferred can impose personal liability on Aronson and Mofshin | Guaranties allegedly induced by misrepresentations may render transferee liability | Fraudulent transfer remedy does not permit personal judgment for the defendants | Counts VII–VIII dismissed to the extent seeking judgment against Aronson and Mofshin for Green Bullion's debt; fraud viable against individuals to extent stated |
| Whether fees may be recovered; the basis for attorneys’ fees | Statutory or contractual entitlement supports fees | No basis articulated for fees against individuals | Fees stricken where no contractual/statutory basis shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Wadlington v. Continental Medical Services, Inc., 907 So.2d 631 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (fraud elements and misrepresentation timing guidance)
- Vance v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So.2d 1367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981) (exceptions to the rule that promises are not past/muture misrepresentations)
- Brown v. Chamax, LLC, 51 So.3d 552 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (fraud in contract contexts may be independent of contract law in some cases)
- Ladner v. AmSouth Bank, 32 So.3d 99 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (fraud in inducement survives when misrepresentations cause entry into a transaction)
- Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 39 So.3d 1216 (Fla. 2010) (economic loss rule does not bar fraud requiring intent to mislead)