Kalimantano GmbH v. Motion in Time, Inc.
1:12-cv-06969
| S.D.N.Y. | Apr 12, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Kalimantano GmbH, Davidoff, Felde, and Schwegler sue MIT and Shamayevs alleging RICO and state-law claims.
- MIT is a New York jewelry/watches business; Amended Complaint centers on three transactions: Tuleshov (2010), Frankfurt (2012), and Davidoff (2012).
- Tuleshov: client paid 65,000 for a watch; watch allegedly older/defective and not returnable; Tuleshov assigned his claim to Schwegler.
- Frankfurt: January 2012 sale arrangements culminated in €143,000 cash; watch purportedly delivered as new but later questioned.
- Davidoff: subsequent orders in January 2012; several wire transfers totaling $120,000; concerns about customs and legitimacy arise.
- Between 2012–2013, allegations include threats by Shamayevs and a defamatory website; plaintiffs seek monetary and equitable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RICO claim is sufficiently pled | MIT is an enterprise; pattern of racketeering alleged across multiple acts. | Alleged acts are too few and too sporadic to show continuity; enterprise not adequately distinct. | RICO claim dismissed for lack of open/closed-ended continuity |
| Whether the Shamayevs' acts establish an enterprise distinct from them | MIT is the enterprise through which defendants allegedly acted | Beauchamp/Bennett guidance shows enterprise could not be separate from the person | Enterprise adequately alleged as distinct; Shamayevs used MIT as the hub |
| Whether open-ended or closed-ended continuity is shown | Allegations span years with ongoing fraud and threats | Few acts, limited victims, and inherently terminable fraud; not open-ended; duration insufficient for closed-ended | Neither open-ended nor closed-ended continuity established; RICO claim dismissed |
| Whether the remaining state-law claims survive | Economic losses and contract disputes warrant relief beyond RICO | Some claims duplicative or barred by the economic-loss rule or lack of independent duty | Breach of contract survives; conversion, fraudulent conveyance, and fraud dismissed; unjust enrichment survives as potential alternative; defamation and tortious interference and injunctive relief dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere speculation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for facially plausible claims)
- Cofacredit v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co., 187 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 1999) (open-ended continuity requires more than isolated acts)
- DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2001) (threats or ongoing conduct can establish continuity)
- First Capital Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2004) (open-ended vs closed-ended continuity framework)