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.

Vasarhelyi v. Vasarhelyi

April 7, 2010

PIERRE VASARHELYI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHELE TABURNO VASARHELYI, A/K/A MICHELE TABURNO, TKG STORAGEMART PARTNERS, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, F/K/A WARBURG STORAGEMART PARTNERS, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert W. Gettleman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This litigation involves a bitter family dispute regarding the artwork of the late Victor Vasarhelyi (known as "Vasarely") and Vasarely's son and plaintiff's father, the late Jean-Pierre Vasarhelyi (known as "Yvaral"). Plaintiff Pierre Vasarhelyi has brought a nine count complaint, including civil RICO*fn1 charges, against his step-mother Michele Taburno Vasarhelyi ("Michele") and TKG Storagemart Partners. Michele has filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's September 10, 2009, Memorandum Opinion and Order (the "September 10 Order") denying her motion to dismiss. Michele has also filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment (Claim I), abuse of process (Claim II), and defamation (Claim III). Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss Claims II and III of the counterclaim for failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated herein, Michele's motion to reconsider is denied, and plaintiff's motion to dismiss is granted.

I. Michele's Motion to Reconsider

Michele presents two grounds in support of her motion to reconsider: (1) the complaint contains intentional misrepresentations of fact upon which the court relied in issuing the September 10 Order, and (2) the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2010), presents new, relevant case law pertinent to the issues raised in the original motion to dismiss. Neither grounds are sufficient for reconsideration of the September 10 Order.

"This Court's opinions are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco. Industries, Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Motions for reconsideration are appropriate "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996). Such motions may not be used to introduce evidence that could have been produced earlier or to reframe arguments previously presented to the court. Oto v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2002).

Michele's motion to reconsider presents her version of the facts underlying the instant dispute, including: the relationships of the relevant actors; the nature of the underlying French lawsuits, appeals, and corresponding decisions issued by the French courts; and other facts relating to the on-going family disputes surrounding the disposal of the artworks and property in question. None of these facts were recently discovered. Rather, Michele seeks to introduce facts previously available to her and to improperly rehash her prior arguments in support of her motion to dismiss.*fn2

Moreover, Michele's motion appears to challenge the well-founded principle that on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2008). If Michele wishes to challenge the factual basis of plaintiff's claims, she must file the proper dispositive motion in due course or wait until trial.

Michele's motion also calls the court's attention to Carr v. Tillery, a recent decision in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed an order dismissing a plaintiff's RICO complaint based on res judicata and the Illinois "one-filing" rule. In dicta Judge Posner states that RICO should not be used to transform a state law contract claim into a federal conspiracy case. Michele argues that Judge Posner's points on this issue, (1) support her argument that plaintiff's claims are more properly made in a probate court in France, not as RICO claims in federal court, and (2) underscore her position that the complaint should be dismissed.

Not only is Carr factually distinguishable from the instant case, but the dicta Michele relies upon merely discusses RICO, rather than presents a significant or controlling change in the law that compels reconsideration of the September 10 Order. See United States v. Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Michele's motion to reconsider is denied.

II. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims

Plaintiff has moved to dismiss Claims II and III of Michele's counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).

A. Legal Standard

When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. City of Carmel, Indiana, 361 F.3d 998, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). The complaint must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds on which the claims rest. The allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising the ...


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.