Waldbaum v. Laufer Delena Cadicina Jensen & Boyd, LLC

MAXIM H. WALDBAUM, Plaintiff, v. LAUFER DELENA CADICINA JENSEN & BOYD, LLC,MARIO DELMONACO, and MICHELLE BENEDEK-BARONE, Defendants.

18-cv-4225 (ALC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FILED: September 27, 2019

September 26, 2019

OPINION & ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., District Judge:

SYLLABUS

In 2001, Maxim H. Waldbaum, a lawyer, divorced his ex-wife. Pursuant to divorce proceedings, Mr. Waldbum was paying upwards of $20,000 a month to his ex-wife in alimony and child support. In 2011, economic factors, increasing age, and a decreasing number of clients led to Mr. Waldbaum's termination from a high salaried job at a New York law firm. Mr. Waldbaum was no longer able to satisfy his monthly payment obligations. Mr. Waldbaum's inability to pay led his ex-wife to hire Laufer, Delena, Cadicina, Jensen & Boyd (hereinafter, "Laufer"), a New Jersey law firm, to obtain the full monthly payment she was owed. Mr. Waldbaum, the Plaintiff in this action, is now suing Laufer and two lawyers at that firm (hereinafter, "Defendants").¹

From 2008 on, Mr. Waldbaum (hereinafter, "Plaintiff" or "Mr. Waldbaum") experienced sporadic employment. Of note, Plaintiff worked for two law firms: Eaton and Van Winkle, PLLC (hereinafter, "Eaton") and Rimon, PC (hereinafter, "Rimon"). Despite his employment asa lawyer, Plaintiff still asserted he could not pay the monthly amount of support owed to his ex-wife. Shortly thereafter, the monthly amount was lowered.

In response to Plaintiff's constant representations of his inability to pay, Laufer, via the services of Ms. Benedek-Barone and Mr. Delmonaco, continued to aggressively seek full payment by securing court orders, seeking to garnish his wages, and trying to incarcerate Plaintiff for his continuous failure to pay. More specifically, Defendants obtained a withholding order, garnishing Plaintiff's wages directly from his then-employer, Eaton. The amount sought from Eaton exceeded what Eaton paid Plaintiff monthly. Defendants also attempted to garnish wages directly from Mr. Waldbaum's subsequent employer, Rimon. Plaintiff claims that by harassing him with aggressive tactics, including baseless litigation, Defendants interfered with his law practice and career prospects. Plaintiff further asserts Defendants harassed his employers by way of baseless accusations of conspiracy.

In this action based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: tortious interference with contractual relationships and tortious interference with business relationships. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.²

For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Waldbaum initiated this action on May 11, 2018, and he filed a Complaint on May 15, 2018. ECF Nos. 1, 5. Plaintiff first amended his Complaint on July 25, 2018. ECF No. 10 ("FAC"). Mr. Waldbaum amended the Complaint for a second time on July 27, 2018. ECF No. 19 ("SAC"). Following the filing of the SAC, the Parties submitted a series of Letters pertainingto Defendants' August 23, 2018 request for a pre-motion conference. ECF Nos. 27-32. On October 24, 2018, the Court held a Status Conference to address the Letters and multiple additional filings. ECF Nos. 33-39. Pursuant to an Order from the Court, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report on November 7, 2018, updating the Court on settlement discussions as well as informing the Court that Defendants wished to move forward with a motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 39-40. Pursuant to the briefing schedule proposed by the Parties, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on November 14, 2018.³ ECF Nos. 42, 44. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on November 30, 2018. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on December 14, 2018. ECF No. 46. Defendants replied on December 21, 2018. ECF No. 47.

Defendants' Motion is deemed fully briefed. After careful consideration, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

BACKGROUND⁴

Mr. Waldbaum is an attorney who has spent much of his career living and practicing law in New York. ECF No. 44, ¶ 8 ("TAC"). In 2001, Plaintiff divorced his ex-spouse. Id. ¶ 9. Pursuant to divorce proceedings, Mr. Waldbaum paid his ex-spouse roughly two million dollars in alimony and child support over a span of eight years. Id. ¶ 10. Mr. Waldbaum claims that, at various points following the divorce, he and his ex-spouse agreed to reduce the support payments owed in light of the 2008 financial crisis and the impact it had on Mr. Waldbaum's employment. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. In 2010, Plaintiff's ex-spouse, via Defendants, initiated a proceeding in matrimonial court in New Jersey seeking the full amount Plaintiff owed in support prior to thefinancial crisis - around $20,000 per month - despite the previously negotiated reduction agreements Id. ¶ 11.

In 2012, as the matrimonial battles wore on, Mr. Waldbaum secured employment with New York based law firm Eaton & Van Winkle PLLC ("Eaton"). Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Waldbaum and Eaton executed an employment agreement (hereinafter, the "Employment Agreement") outlining the nature of his role with Eaton and his compensation structure. Id. ¶¶ 12-13.; TAC Ex 1 ("Emp't Contract"). According to the Complaint, the Employment Contract required Eaton to provide "certain support to Plaintiff and Plaintiff to receive compensation for (1) work he performed for the firm; (2) work the firm gave him to perform for others, particularly other partners, in the firm; (3) work other partners and other employees of the firm did for Plaintiff; (4) other benefits that provided to all employees (sic)." Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff contends that his employment "heavily" relied on the support from the firm and his relationship with his colleagues. Id. ¶ 15. Mr. Waldbaum's newfound employment with Eaton represented his sole source of income, and he possessed no other assets or supplemental forms of income. Id. ¶¶ 15-17.

In 2015, prior to a previously scheduled plenary hearing in New Jersey family court, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants requested $25,000 in fees for litigation costs and expenses. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff was unable to pay the requested fees, and the court entered a Default Order against Plaintiff on October 22, 2015. Id. Defendants were awarded over $150,000 in fees and placed a lien on Plaintiff's current spouse's properties located in New York. Id. At some point thereafter, Defendants involved the Probation Department of the Superior Court of New Jersey ("Probation") to oversee the case. Id. ¶ 19. On December 1, 2015, Probation issued Eaton a Notice of Income Withholding Order ("IWO") pursuant to the Uniform Interstate FamilySupport Act ("UIFSA"). Id. ¶ 20. The IWO garnished $8,250 a month from Plaintiff's monthly income. Id. Plaintiff alleges that prior to receiving the IWO, Eaton informed him that his monthly income would be $7,000. Id. ¶ 21. Upon realizing that the IWO would be impossible to comply with, Eaton advised Probation of the issue. Id. ¶ 22.

Following the issuance of the IWO, Defendants returned to court in New Jersey seeking a bench warrant with a release fee of $100,000. Id. ¶ 23. However, due to Plaintiff's inability to pay, the court vacated the bench warrant. Id. Mr. Waldbaum supplements his claims by asserting that Defendants knew that Probation and the New Jersey court were engaged in conflicting proceedings, yet they failed to inform the two agencies of the inconsistent actions taken by the other. Id. Furthermore, even though the IWO was also issued to the Social Security Administration ("SSA") and the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), Mr. Waldbaum claims that Defendants specifically contacted and "sued" Eaton, Plaintiff's employer at the time. Id. ¶¶ 25-27. Plaintiff posits that, despite knowing that their client (Plaintiff's ex-spouse) was being adequately provided for via the IWO, Defendants continued to "harass" Mr. Waldbaum with subpoenas, court hearings, TROs, threats of sanctions, and allegations of a conspiracy theory between Eaton and Plaintiff relating to Plaintiff's assets. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff declares that all of the harassment occurred on the basis of withheld information from the Court - that Plaintiff was adequately complying with the IWO and providing his ex-spouse with spousal support. Id. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff alleges that his relationship with Eaton soured and eventually ceased to exist. Id. ¶¶ 30-31.

In October of 2017, Eaton engaged in merger discussions with Offit Kurman ("Offit"), a Maryland-based law firm seeking to establish a New York presence. Id. ¶ 32. Initially, upon learning that Eaton was prepared to go forward with the merger without Plaintiff, Offit hesitatedand withdrew their offer. Id. However, on December 17, 2017, Plaintiff was made aware that the merger would continue and Plaintiff would be the only partner who would not be offered a position as a member of Offit, New York. Id. ¶ 33. Mr. Waldbaum claims that Defendants' constant harassment damaged Plaintiff's relationship with Eaton to the point that "open hostility existed between members of the Executive Committee [at Eaton] and Plaintiff." Id. Further, Mr. Waldbaum asserts that it was Defendants' conduct that ultimately led to his termination on December 17, 2017. Id. ¶ 34.

Following his termination, Plaintiff states that he lived off only $200 a month as he sought out new employment. Id. Aside from providing Plaintiff with a stream of income, Mr. Waldbaum declares that newfound employment would allow him to satisfy his only remaining support obligation - opposing counsels' fees. Id. ¶ 35. On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff secured employment with the virtual law firm Rimon, PC ("Rimon"). Id. ¶ 38. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Delmonaco sent a letter to New Jersey Court requesting that the Judge incarcerate Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 39. Following Defendant Delmonaco's...