Timber Ridge, Inc. et al v. Rullan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 14-81191-CV-HURLEY/HOPKINS
FRED GREENBERG and
TIMBER RIDGE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LUIS (JANER) RULLAN, and
LUIS (COLOM) RULLAN,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER DISMISSING CASE, AND STAYING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of
Order Dismissing Case [ECF No. 12]. 	Plaintiff Timber Ridge, Inc. (“Timber Ridge”) is a
children’s summer camp partly owned by Co-Plaintiff Fred Greenberg. 	Defendants are Juis
(Janer) Rullan (“Rullan, Jr.”), a former camper at Timber Ridge, and Luis (Colom) Rullan, Sr.
(“Rullan, Sr.”), his father. Seeking to retire from Timber Ridge, Greenberg met with the Rullans
in Palm Beach County, Florida to discuss a sale. They reached an alleged agreement, which was
soon followed by a disagreement.
As a result of their disagreement, Rullan, Jr. sued Greenberg in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on August 14, 2012, adding Timber Ridge as a defendant on
November 5, 2013. 	Timber Ridge’s response in the Maryland case is due thirty days after a
February 20, 2015 mediation, at which time it intends to file a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. See Pl.’s Reply at 5.
Case 9:14-cv-81191-JEM 	Document 17 	Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2015 	Page 1 of 5
No. 3:18-ap-00032 Doc 18 Filed 07/16/18 Entered 07/17/18 09:26:11 Page 1 of 5

2
Instead of filing a counterclaim in the District of Maryland, Greenberg and Timber Ridge
filed suit against the Rullans in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida on August 18, 2014. 	Upon removal to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, this Court dismissed the case. Following the principle of I.A.
Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat. Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986), the Court found that
Plaintiffs’ present suit was duplicative of the Maryland suit. 	Plaintiffs now move the Court to
reconsider this dismissal, requesting that the Court instead stay this litigation pending the
resolution of the Maryland case.
LEGAL STANDARD
There are three reasons to grant a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e): 	“(1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Williams v. Cruise Ships Catering & Serv. Int'l,
N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357-58 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “A motion for reconsideration cannot be
used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir.
2009) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th
Cir.2005)). “A district court has sound discretion whether to alter or amend a judgment pursuant
to a motion for reconsideration, and its decision will only be reversed if it abused that
discretion.” Id. (citing O'Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044, 1047 (11th Cir.1992)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs argue that dismissing the case, and not staying it, wreaks a manifest injustice
against them. 	According to Plaintiffs, if they cannot bring their case against Rullan, Sr. in the
Case 9:14-cv-81191-JEM 	Document 17 	Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2015 	Page 2 of 5
No. 3:18-ap-00032 Doc 18 Filed 07/16/18 Entered 07/17/18 09:26:11 Page 2 of 5

3
Southern District of Florida, then they cannot bring a case against him at all. 	For, Plaintiffs
contend, they cannot establish jurisdiction against Rullan, Sr. anywhere but here. 	More
appropriate to them would be a stay of the current litigation pending resolution of the Maryland
case.
ANALYSIS
The Eleventh Circuit in Durbin I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat. Bank, 793 F.2d 1541,
1551–52 (11th Cir. 1986) provides the district court “broad discretion” to “stay or dismiss
litigation” it finds duplicative. Durbin notes that a “discretionary stay is justified only if, based
on a balancing of the parties’ interests, there is a clear inequity to the suppliant who is required to
defend while another action remains unresolved and if the order granting a stay can be framed to
contain reasonable limits on its duration.” 	Id. at 1552 n.13. Durbin recognizes it would be the
defendant who is the suppliant for the stay, as the defendant is the person forced into court
during the pendency of the earlier case. In this case, though, it is Plaintiffs who are the suppliant.
Plaintiffs request a stay not because of the inequity of defending a claim during the pendency of
another case, but because they fear losing their claim. 	Plaintiffs explain that without a stay,
Plaintiffs may ultimately fail the statute of limitations and never obtain jurisdiction over Rullan,
Sr. Upon review of their motion and an appreciation of Plaintiffs’ concern, the Court finds that
equity justifies a stay, not a dismissal: even if Plaintiffs could have brought their claims against
the Rullans in Maryland, the Court does not hold that they should have, or that they faulted by
filing them here.
Plaintiffs explain to the Court that jurisdiction in Maryland has not yet been established
over Timber Ridge. In fact, Timber Ridge intends to contest jurisdiction after the conclusion of
Case 9:14-cv-81191-JEM 	Document 17 	Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2015 	Page 3 of 5
No. 3:18-ap-00032 Doc 18 Filed 07/16/18 Entered 07/17/18 09:26:11 Page 3 of 5

4
mediation. 	Therefore, for Timber Ridge to have filed a counterclaim in Maryland against the
Rullans would have either been premature or mistaken—mistaken because, had it done so,
Timber Ridge may have subjected itself to personal jurisdiction there. 	See e.g., Family Dollar
Stores, Inc. v. Christian Casey LLC, No. CIV. 3:06CV377, 2008 WL 820281, at *5 (W.D.N.C.
Mar. 20, 2008) (explaining that “the trend”—but not the established rule—“is to hold that no
Rule 12(b) defense is waived by the assertion of a counterclaim . . . .”). 	Given its concern in
waiving contested jurisdiction, Timber Ridge did not fault by filing its suit as a complaint in
Palm Beach County, Florida, as opposed to a counterclaim in Maryland. 	Nor did Greenberg
fault by doing the same. 	Greenberg explains that he could not obtain jurisdiction over Rullan,
Sr. in the District of Maryland. 	Although Greenberg could have filed his Florida complaint
against only Rullan, Jr., to seek complete relief he felt it necessary to add Rullan, Sr. 	In fact,
Rullan, Sr. may be a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19; see generally
Laker Airways, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC, 182 F.3d 843, 847 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A party is
considered “necessary” to the action if the court determines either that complete relief cannot be
granted with the present parties or the absent party has an interest in the disposition of the current
proceedings.”).
A stay of this case, then, would be more equitable than a dismissal: 	were the Court to
dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Rullan, Jr., then Timber Ridge could not bring a suit against
him without potentially subjecting itself to jurisdiction in Maryland; were the Court to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ claims against Rullan, Sr., then both Greenberg and Timber Ridge may be forever
prevented from bringing suit against him. To dismiss the present case, and not to stay it, could
Case 9:14-cv-81191-JEM 	Document 17 	Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2015 	Page 4 of 5
No. 3:18-ap-00032 Doc 18 Filed 07/16/18 Entered 07/17/18 09:26:11 Page 4 of 5

5
foreclose Plaintiffs’ remedies against both the Rullans. 	Any gain in judicial efficiency or
minimization of duplicative lawsuits would be insufficient to outweigh this inequity.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Case [ECF No. 12] is
GRANTED.
2. 	Paragraph 3 of The Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Transfer, Denying
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand, Dismissing Action, and Closing Case [ECF No. 11] is
AMENDED as follows:
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants are STAYED pending the close of
Rullan v. Goden, 1:12-cv-02412-CCB (D. Md.) and all related appeals.
DONE and SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 7 th day of January,
2015.
Daniel T. K. Hurley
United States District Judge
Copies provided to counsel of record
For updated court information, visit unofficial webpage at http://www.judgehurley.com
Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration
Greenberg et al. v. Rullan et al., No. 14-81191-CV-Hurley/Hopkins
Case 9:14-cv-81191-JEM 	Document 17 	Entered on FLSD Docket 01/07/2015 	Page 5 of 5
No. 3:18-ap-00032 Doc 18 Filed 07/16/18 Entered 07/17/18 09:26:11 Page 5 of 5