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.

DiPrete v. 950 Fairview Street, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division

May 31, 2016

R. FRANCIS DiPRETE, Plaintiff,
v.
950 FAIRVIEW STREET, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.

          James P. Jones United States District Judge R. Francis DiPrete, Pro Se Plaintiff; Robert T. Copeland

          Copeland Law Firm, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Defendants Michael Stramiello and 950 Fairview Street, LLC.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          James P. Jones, United States District Judge.

         In this contractual dispute, defendants Michael Stramiello and 950 Fairview Street, LLC, have moved to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, I will dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims entitled “Bad Faith Breach, ” but I will otherwise deny the defendants’ motions.

         I.

         The following facts are taken from the plaintiff’s pro se Complaint and attached documents, which facts I am bound at this point to accept as true.

         The plaintiff alleges that he entered into a consulting agreement with the defendants for the purpose of redeveloping real property located at 950 Fairview Street in Bristol, Virginia. He asserts that defendant Michael Cosola is the owner of that property, while defendant Stramiello has “a beneficial ownership in the property.” (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF. No 1.) Defendant 950 Fairview Street, LLC (“950 Fairview”) is an entity that appears to have existed for the purpose of advancing the business interests associated with the property.

         The plaintiff claims that the consulting agreement began on June 1, 2011, and continued until July 31, 2013. While the plaintiff attached a copy of a written agreement to his Complaint, he agrees that it was never signed by the parties. The plaintiff alleges that he nonetheless fulfilled his duties under the agreement.

         The plaintiff says that the consulting agreement mandated that he was to be paid $6, 000 per month for his consulting services during each month of the contractual period. He also claims that he accrued $18, 170.82 in expenses while working for the defendants, and that the consulting agreement required him to be reimbursed for those expenses. Lastly, he alleges that he was promised a 15 per cent ownership stake in the property to compensate for the defendants’ failure to timely pay him the other amounts due.

         The plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 29, 2015, asserting separate claims for breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and establishment of a constructive trust on the subject property and its proceeds.

         The defendants previously moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5); they argued that there had been insufficient service of process and a failure to timely effectuate process. The pro se plaintiff admitted that proper service had not been effected in a timely manner, so I granted him an extension until February 15, 2016, to effect such service. I later extended the deadline for effecting service to February 29, 2016. The record shows that defendant Stramiello was served on February 24, 2016 with two summonses. One of these summonses was addressed to him, while the other was addressed to 950 Fairview.

         II.

         Stramiello and 950 Fairview separately argue that dismissal is appropriate under Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ...


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.