Reddy v. Buttar

RACHAN DAMIDI REDDY, Petitioner, v. RASHID A. BUTTAR, Respondent.

DOCKET NO. 3:18-cv-00172-FDW-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

May 4, 2020

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Rachan Damidi Reddy's ("Reddy") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 71). Respondent Rashid A. Buttar ("Buttar") has responded to Petitioner's Motion, (Doc. No. 73), Petitioner replied (Doc. No. 75), and the matter is now ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

The matter arrived before the Court with a moderately complex background. On June 21, 2010, the parties entered into a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement ("the Agreement") pertaining to the share of several entities in the Philippines. (Doc. No. 74, p. 1). At some point, a dispute arose between the parties that led to an arbitration in Singapore. (Doc. No. 1, p. 2). Pursuant to Paragraph 8(b) of the Agreement, "[a]ny dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC Rules") . . . ." (Doc. No. 1-2, p. 16, ¶ 8).

Respondent objected to the arbitration, arguing that he did not sign the Agreement and that, assuming he did sign the Agreement, it was not the latest version of the document. (Doc. No. 57-2, p. 32, ¶ 34). Respondent has continued to maintain the Agreement presented before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") was a fraudulent document. E.g., (Doc. No. 71-3, p. 10). On January 29, 2013, the arbitration tribunal (the "tribunal") informed the parties that Respondent's jurisdictional challenge—which consisted of his argument that he did not sign the document, and that if he did, it was not the latest version—would be addressed with the merits. (Doc. No. 57-2, p. 33, ¶ 37). When Respondent nor counsel appeared at the hearing, see id. at 35, ¶ 42, the tribunal waited fifteen minutes, and in the continued absence of Respondent and his counsel, resumed the proceedings pursuant to the SIAC's rules. Id. Having reviewed Respondent's arguments, the tribunal found Respondent's jurisdictional argument "disingenuous." Id. at 37, ¶ 46. Specifically, the tribunal found:

By his own email of 23 June 2010, the Respondent in forwarding a copy of the Agreement dated 21 June 2010 signed by both parties stated:

"Rachan,

Here is the [Agreement] and also the other agreement (one page) that you asked for. A few of the last adendums [sic] were not signed because I didn't think they needed to be . . . but then I thought it would be better to sign then [sic] than NOT sign them. So the hard copies being sent, have all the pages signed. They did not get out today due to missing the deadline for Fed Ex but all papers are signed, witnessed and completed, ready to go out Fed Ex first thing tomorrow. Thanks Rachan. And Congratulations! BTW, I'm definitely having some 'seller's remorse'. Talk to you soon."

Id. at 37-38, ¶ 46 (alterations and emphasis in original). The tribunal further noted that "[t]he Agreement enclosed as per the said email showed all pages thereof duly signed and initialed at every page by both parties." Id. Accordingly, the tribunal considered and dismissed Respondent's jurisdictional objection based on an email and subsequent documents he sent to Petitioner in 2010 purporting to be a signed copy of the Agreement. Id.

On April 10, 2015, the SIAC issued its Final Award, which was in favor of Petitioner. (Doc. No. 1, p. 2). The SIAC ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner "the monies previously paid to [Respondent] by the [Petitioner] amounting to US $1,550,000.00." Id. at 2-3 (alterations in original) (quotation omitted). In addition, the award was to bear interest at 5.33 percent per annum from the date the arbitration commenced to the date of the award, and SIAC awarded Petitioner $381,479.34 in legal fees and disbursements, $26,550.68 in expert witness fees, and $7,231.96 in other expenses, and costs of the arbitration totaling $79,439.80. Id. at 3. On April 6, 2018, Petitioner initiated this action, requesting a judgment in his favor of the cumulative total of the above amounts in addition to pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Id. In the meantime, Respondent had moved several times, eventually arriving in New Zealand. (Doc. No. 71-3, p. 16).

Petitioner served Respondent on April 15, 2018, and Respondent's Answer was therefore due on May 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 3). By June 19, the Court had received no further filings from either party and issued a Show Cause Order, instructing Petitioner to inform the Court why he had not sought an entry of default or otherwise prosecuted his case. (Doc. No. 4). In his response to the Show Cause Order, Petitioner's counsel stated he received a call from counsel for Respondent indicating service at the address where it occurred may not have constituted good service, and Respondent planned to dispute jurisdiction and venue in the Western District. (Doc. No. 5, p. 1). After Respondent's counsel refused to accept service on his behalf, Petitioner sought to effect service in a manner beyond reproach, including seeking to have the Iredell County Sheriff's Office personally serve Respondent at his medical practice in Mooresville, North Carolina. Id. at 3. Petitioner was repeatedly told that Respondent was out of the country and no one at the practiceknew when he might return to North Carolina. Id. Petitioner subsequently requested, and the Court granted, a Motion for Extension of Time to serve Respondent so he could effectuate service of process that would not be subject to later attack. (Docs. Nos. 6, 7).

Not long thereafter, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue. (Doc. No. 8). In the accompanying memorandum, Respondent argued the Court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and that venue was not proper in North Carolina. (Doc. No. 9, p. 2). The Court denied the Motion in part, determining that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and deferred ruling on the other portions of the Motion pending a ninety (90) day period to conduct jurisdictional discovery. (Doc. No. 18, pp. 5-6, 8). After this ninety-day period, during which the parties filed a flurry of documents, including motions for extensions, sanctions, continuances, and amended memoranda, the Court held a hearing on the motion, and the parties later submitted proposed findings of fact. (Docs. Nos. 44, 45). The Court ultimately found that Respondent was domiciled in North Carolina at the time the action was commenced on April 6, 2018, and the Court accordingly had personal jurisdiction over him. (Doc. No. 50, pp. 10, 15). The Court also found venue was proper in the Western District. Id. at 15.

After the Court determined it had personal jurisdiction over Respondent and that venue was proper, Petitioner filed for leave to amend his petition, specifically requesting an opportunity to provide the mutually signed copy of the Agreement and assert diversity jurisdiction as an additional ground for subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 52). The Court granted Petitioner's motion, and Petitioner filed his Amended Petition approximately nine days later. (Docs. Nos. 56,57).¹

Yet again, Respondent did not file an Answer or Response to the Amended Petition. Over two months after Petitioner filed his Amended Petition, and in an effort to ensure the expeditious handling of its docket, the Court issued a Second Show Cause Order. (Doc. No. 59). In the Second Show Cause Order, and in light of Petitioner being granted his Motion to Amend Petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to show why he had not sought an entry of default or otherwise prosecuted his case, considering that Respondent's Answer or Response had been due over six weeks prior to the Second Show Cause Order. Id. The same day the Court's Second Show Cause Order was issued, Respondent finally filed his Response to the Amended Petition—long after it was originally due, and without having sought an extension from or otherwise notifying the Court. See generally (Doc. No. 60).

A little over a week later, Petitioner filed his Response to the Second Show Cause Order. (Doc. No. 61). Instead of seeking an entry of default, counsel for Petitioner reached out to Respondent's counsel to inquire. Id. at 2, ¶ 9. Respondent's counsel requested Petitioner wait before seeking an entry of default so she could confer with her client, including the prospect of settlement. Id. at 2, ¶ 10. Evidently, there was difficulty in arranging this communication due to the fact Respondent had moved to New Zealand. Id. In any event, Petitioner's counsel was satisfied with Respondent's counsel's update, and the parties conducted their Initial Attorney Conference. Id. at 2, ¶ 10-11.

Finally, after approximately a year and a half of contentious procedural litigation, the casemoved forward. Petitioner filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on February 27, 2020. (Doc. No. 71). The Court scheduled a hearing on the Motion, set for April 8, 2020. (Doc. No. 72). Respondent filed his Response and Petitioner filed his Reply, thereby making the matter ripe for review. (Docs. Nos. 73, 74). Due to the rapidly evolving situation regarding the outbreak of the COVID-19 novel coronavirus, the Court determined it most prudent to cancel the hearing and adjudicate the motion based on the parties' briefs. (Doc. No. 76, p. 1).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact in the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its...