OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Petroholding Dominicana, Ltd. (“Petroholding” or “Plaintiff”), a Dominican company that is the successor-in-interest to Antonveneta Holdings, Ltd. (“Antonveneta”), a Cypriot company, has brought suit against Michael Gordon (“Defendant”), a resident of California, for an alleged fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant exploited his language skills and a shared Russian heritage to trick Plaintiff into believing that a Chinese oil conglomerate wished to invest in Plaintiff’s Dominican real estate project. While this web of international intrigue spanning across corporations and continents provides a complex factual background, the motion before the Court requires analysis of a far more limited question: Does the Dominican or the Cypriot statute of limitations control? Defendant argues for the application of the Dominican statute, which would render Plaintiff’s allegations time-barred, while Plaintiff argues for the Cypriot statute, which would allow the case to move forward. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Dominican statute of limitations controls and, therefore, grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss in full.The Court is aware that this result can seem troubling in light of the serious allegations in the Amended Complaint. However, while the outcome may be discomforting, the Court finds no legal basis for applying any other statute of limitations that would allow the case to move forward.BACKGROUND1A. Factual Background1. The PartiesPlaintiff is a corporation, with its headquarters and principal place of business in the Dominican Republic. (Am. Compl. 2). Plaintiff is a developer of real estate in the Dominican Republic. (Id. at 6). Antonveneta is a Cypriot company, with its headquarters and principal place of business in the Dominican Republic. (See Def. Br. 4-5).2 Michael Gordon is a resident of California and a United States citizen. (Am. Compl. 4).2. Defendant’s Business Relationship with PlaintiffThis case arises from Plaintiff’s development of a building in Juan Dolio in the Dominican Republic, called the Mariposa (the “Mariposa Development”). (Am. Compl. 8). Antonveneta provided funding for Plaintiff to build the site, and Plaintiff sought further funds to complete the development or to sell it. (Id.). In 2010, Defendant and Plaintiff’s president, Vladimir Bulavin, met, and Defendant allegedly represented to Mr. Bulavin that he was affiliated with Glickman Capital (“Glickman”), a private equity firm headquartered in California. (Id. at
10-11).Defendant, purporting to act on behalf of Glickman, negotiated an agreement whereby Plaintiff would pay Glickman $45,000 per month for a period of four months, from September 2010 through December 2010, in exchange for Glickman’s assistance with financial restructuring and fundraising. (Am. Compl.
