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.

Polunin v. Fedotov

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

March 29, 2017

DMITRY POLUNIN; EVGENY BARZOV; TIMUR KHARCHENKO, Plaintiffs,
v.
MIKHAIL FEDOTOV; DOES 1-20; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MIKHAIL FEDOTOV'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION (ECF NO. 8)

          HELEN GILLMOR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Dmitry Polunin, Evgeny Barzov, and Timur Kharchenko filed a Complaint alleging state law breach of contract claims against Defendant Mikhail Fedotov.

         The Complaint alleges Plaintiffs are citizens of the Russian Federation.

         The Complaint does not contain an allegation as to Defendant Fedotov's citizenship. The Complaint alleges Defendant Fedotov is a permanent resident of the United States of America and a resident of the State of Hawaii.

         Defendant Fedotov filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant asserts he is a citizen of the Russian Federation, just as are all three Plaintiffs. Defendant argues that there is no diversity jurisdiction and that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Complaint.

         Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On December 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1).

         On January 27, 2017, Defendant filed DEFENDANT MIKHAIL FEDOTOV'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION. (ECF No. 8).

         On February 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIKHAIL FEDOTOV'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION. (ECF No. 12).

         On February 27, 2017, Defendant filed DEFENDANT MIKHAIL FEDOTOV'S MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MIKHAIL FEDOTOV'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION. (ECF No. 16).

         On March 28, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs Dmitry Polunin, Evgeny Barzov, and Timur Kharchenko state they are citizens of the Russian Federation. (Complaint at ¶¶ 1-3, ECF No. 1).

         The Complaint does not contain an allegation as to Defendant Mikhail Fedotov's citizenship. The Complaint states that Defendant Fedotov is “a permanent resident of the United States and a current resident of the State of Hawaii.” (Id. at ¶ 4). Defendant Fedotov submitted an affidavit stating that he is a citizen of the Russian Federation. (Affidavit of Defendant Mikhail Fedotov at ¶ 3, attached to Def.'s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8-2).

         The Complaint contains two state law claims against Defendant Fedotov. (Complaint at ¶¶ 33-38, ECF No. 1).

         Count I

         Count I is a state law claim for Breach of Contract by Plaintiffs Polunin and Barzov against Defendant Fedotov. (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35).

         Plaintiffs claim Defendant Fedotov is a member and sole manager of Envy Hawaii, LLC, a limited liability company selling automobiles in Hawaii. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-10).

         The Complaint states that in 2012, Plaintiffs Polunin and Barzov each purchased an interest in Envy Hawaii, LLC. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9, 11-12). Plaintiffs Polunin and Barzov allege that in 2014, they entered into an agreement with Defendant Fedotov for him to purchase their combined interests in Envy Hawaii, LLC. (Id. at ¶¶ 13-17). Plaintiffs Polunin and Barzov claim Defendant Fedotov did not make sufficient payments to them and failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17, 22-35).

         Count II

         Count II is a state law claim for Breach of Contract by Plaintiff Kharchenko against Defendant ...


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.