District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby

 

Read Full- Text Decision

New York resident Martin formed Mastiff Contracting LLC in 2009. Hellmich, a lawyer living in California became a one-percent shareholder in Mastiff, allegedly assuming a fiduciary duty to protect Martin, Mastiff, Holley. Hellmich and Mastiff entered into a Sept. 27, 2013, agreement under which Mastiff promised to repay Hellmich’s $50,000 loan. The agreement required arbitration in Orange County, California. Hellmich made three more loans to Mastiff. Hellmich allegedly violated his fiduciary duties by bringing arbitration proceedings in California. The court granted Hellmich’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ pro se copyright infringement action, as res judicata on the basis of a prior federal action in the Central District of California, confirming three arbitration awards against Martin. In addition to the reasons for dismissal set out in Hellmich’s memorandum of law the court noted, among other things, that the information attached to Hellmich’s unopposed motion was integral to plaintiffs’ verified complaint, which expressly referenced the arbitration proceedings. Nor did plaintiffs’ verified complaint plausibly suggest that it concerned any acts or incidents arising after the commencement, or confirmation, of the arbitral proceedings in California.

District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby

 

Read Full- Text Decision

New York resident Martin formed Mastiff Contracting LLC in 2009. Hellmich, a lawyer living in California became a one-percent shareholder in Mastiff, allegedly assuming a fiduciary duty to protect Martin, Mastiff, Holley. Hellmich and Mastiff entered into a Sept. 27, 2013, agreement under which Mastiff promised to repay Hellmich’s $50,000 loan. The agreement required arbitration in Orange County, California. Hellmich made three more loans to Mastiff. Hellmich allegedly violated his fiduciary duties by bringing arbitration proceedings in California. The court granted Hellmich’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ pro se copyright infringement action, as res judicata on the basis of a prior federal action in the Central District of California, confirming three arbitration awards against Martin. In addition to the reasons for dismissal set out in Hellmich’s memorandum of law the court noted, among other things, that the information attached to Hellmich’s unopposed motion was integral to plaintiffs’ verified complaint, which expressly referenced the arbitration proceedings. Nor did plaintiffs’ verified complaint plausibly suggest that it concerned any acts or incidents arising after the commencement, or confirmation, of the arbitral proceedings in California.