Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rossi v. Quarmley

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

March 25, 2014

LOUIS ROSSI, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN QUARMLEY; JAMES MORTON, III; and PRINCIPIA VENTURES LLC, Defendants

NEAL A. JACOBS, ESQUIRE, JOSHUA A. GELMAN, ESQUIRE, On behalf of Plaintiff.

HOWARD A. ROSENTHAL, ESQUIRE, On behalf of Defendants.

OPINION

Page 503

James Knoll Gardner, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. For the following reasons, I grant the motion and dismiss the Complaint.

Plaintiff Louis Rossi brings this action against defendants John Quarmley, James Morton, III and Principia Ventures LLC for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 15 U.S.C. § § 78a - 78pp. Specifically, in his Amended Complaint, plaintiff claims that defendants Quarmley and Morton fraudulently manipulated plaintiff into selling them plaintiff's interest in Principia Ventures LLC. He is seeking damages and costs (Counts I to V), a constructive trust (Count VI), and rescission of the purchase agreement and costs (Count VII).

SUMMARY OF DECISION

For the reasons expressed below defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.

Specifically, I grant defendants' motion to dismiss Count I because plaintiff has not alleged that his interest in defendant Principia Ventures LLC was a security, as required to state a claim for a violation of Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Furthermore, because plaintiff has failed to state a federal Securities Exchange Act claim, I grant defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's state-law claims in Counts II through VII for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION

This court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of plaintiff's Securities Exchange Act claim based upon federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's pendent Pennsylvania state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

VENUE

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to these claims occurred in Chester County, Pennsylvania, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § § 118, 1391(b).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, Louis Rossi, initiated this action on December 12, 2012 by filing a Complaint against defendants John Quarmley, James Morton, III, and Principia Ventures LLC.

Page 504

On February 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's original Complaint.

By Order signed May 23, 2013 and filed May 24, 2013, I granted plaintiff's request to file an amended complaint.

On June 17, 2013 plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against defendants John Quarmley, James Morton, III, and Principia Ventures LLC. On July 1, 2013 defendants filed the within Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

On July 15, 2013 plaintiff filed his Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.

Defendants filed a Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on August 5, 2013. On August 6, 2013, plaintiff's filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A claim may be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for " failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." A Rule 12(b)(6) motion requires the court to examine the sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, 84 (1957) (abrogated in other respects by Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Generally, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court relies on the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters of public record, including other judicial proceedings. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2008).

Except as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9, a complaint is sufficient if it complies with Rule 8(a)(2), which requires " a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 8(a)(2) does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d at 949.[1]

In determining whether a complaint is sufficient, the court must accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). Although " conclusory" or " bare-bones allegations" will not survive a motion to dismiss, Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210, a complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those facts or will ultimately prevail on the merits. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 231. Nonetheless, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must provide " enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Id. at 234 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. at 1965, 167 L.Ed.2d at 940)(internal quotations omitted).

The court is required to conduct a two-part analysis when considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.