23 F. Supp. 3d 173
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Idea Italiana and Helios sue Cantamessa USA, Fabrizio Cantamessa, and Robert Kheit for conversion of 112 Cantamessa jewelry pieces.
- Plaintiffs assert related claims including RICO, copyright, trademark, and related torts arising from marketing, selling, and disposition of jewelry.
- Defendants moved to dismiss RICO and common-law fraud claims; Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on conversion.
- Exhibitions and shipments in 2011 (ATA Carnet and Temporary Export) involved temporary import, display at the April 28, 2011 New York exhibition, and subsequent sale or disposition by Cantamessa USA.
- Ownership and title to many of the 112 pieces are disputed due to IGJ/Delora inventories and unresolved payments, creating factual disputes over who owned the jewelry.
- Court denied summary judgment on conversion, granted dismissal of RICO and common-law fraud, and denied sanctions without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 112 pieces were converted. | Idea/Helios contend Cantamessa USA possessed/appropriated the jewelry without due accounting. | Ownership disputed; many pieces may have remained IGJ/Delora property or were not owned by Plaintiffs. | Summary judgment on conversion denied due to ownership and damages disputes. |
| Whether the RICO claims survive against the Defendants. | AC expands predicates and conspiratorial activity; alleged mail/wire/copyright irregularities support RICO. | RICO claims are merely routine contract/trade disputes; insufficient predicate acts and mischaracterization of conduct. | Counts I–IV (RICO) dismissed. |
| Whether the common-law fraud claim survives. | Defendants’ misrepresentations and failure to return jewelry constitute fraud. | Fraud claim premised on breach of contract; not cognizable as fraud under New York law. | Fraud claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whether sanctions are warranted for repleading dismissed claims. | Reasserted claims reflect ongoing prosecutorial effort and misconduct by Defendants. | Sanctions appropriate for frivolous pleadings. | Sanctions denied without prejudice; leave to renew later. |
| Whether partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) is appropriate for any claims. | If some claims are resolved, partial judgment would aid appeal. | Claims are intertwined; avoid piecemeal adjudication. | Partial final judgment not entered; proceeding to trial on intertwined claims preferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facts must nudge claims across the line from conceivable to plausible)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting to inoculate nonmovant with evidence)
- Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 642 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2011) (Rule 54(b) final judgments should be rare when claims are intertwined)
- American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 388 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1967) (guide to handling complex litigation and summary judgment context)