![]() ![]() ¶ 17) and that Stanley Middleman would convince other leading U.S. ¶¶ 19-20) that the new company would be an independent, public facing corporation unlike the Middleman's other closely held companies ( Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Stanley Middleman promised that FMC and Archwell Holdings would transfer substantial intellectual property to the new company ( Id. Plaintiff alleges that Stanley Middleman assured Plaintiff that FMC would contribute 140 to 150 million in yearly recurring revenue to the new technology company in order to help the technology company reach multi-billion-dollar status. Id.ĭuring these negotiations, Stanley Middleman detailed his plans for the new technology company, describing it as a multi-billion-dollar opportunity. ![]() Plaintiff alleges that during these discussions he made clear that receiving meaningful equity in the new technology company was required for him to consider the position at FMC. Stanley Middleman and Michael Middleman, who serves as FMC's Executive Vice President, began negotiating Plaintiff's terms of employment and discussing plans for the new technology company with Plaintiff in 2019. Stanley Middleman and Michael Middleman wanted to hire Plaintiff to work at FMC and later lead the family's new technology company. In early 2019, Plaintiff began speaking with Stanley Middleman, CEO of FMC, about the Middleman family's desire to create a tech company that would develop and market technology for lenders and service providers in the mortgage industry. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion. Defendants include corporate entities Freedom Mortgage Corporation (“FMC”), Xpanse LLC (“Xpanse”), Keystone B2B LLC (“Keystone”), Archwell Holdings LLC, Archwell Solutions LLC, and Archwell Management LLC (collectively referred to as the “Archwell entities”), as well as the corporations' directors, Stanley Middleman, Michael Middleman, Gregory Middleman, and Erik Anderson.īefore the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the following grounds: (i) lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), and (ii) failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Rahul Mewawalla (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against his former employers, supervisors, and several of their associates for fraud, breach of contract, various California statutory offenses, constructive trust, equitable accounting, and declaratory relief. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |