United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
DAWN NATALIA; LAWRENCE NATALIA; and GOOSE & GANDER, LLC, Plaintiffs,
TAX CREDITS, LLC, Defendant.
Natalia, Plaintiff, represented by Richard G. Galli & David
Jesse Oliveira, David Oliveira, Esq..
Lawrence Natalia, Plaintiff, represented by Richard G. Galli
& David Jesse Oliveira, David Oliveira, Esq..
& Gander, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Richard G. Galli &
David Jesse Oliveira, David Oliveira, Esq..
Credits, LLC, Defendant, represented by Rachelle R. Green,
Duffy & Sweeney, LTD..
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief District Judge.
the Court is a Request for Entry of Default filed by
Plaintiffs Dawn Natalia, Lawrence Natalia, and Goose &
Gander, LLC ("Plaintiffs' Motion") (ECF No. 5),
and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and
Objection to Plaintiffs' Motion filed by Defendant Tax
Credits, LLC ("Defendant's Motion") (ECF No.
8). Plaintiffs also filed a Reply in Support of their Motion
and an Objection to Defendant's Motion
("Plaintiffs' Reply") (ECF No. 9). After
careful consideration, both motions are DENIED for the
reasons set forth below.
Goose & Gander, LLC ("G&G") is a Rhode Island
limited liability company with a principal place of business
in Rhode Island. G&G is owned by Plaintiffs Dawn and Lawrence
Natalia. Defendant Tax Credits, LLC ("TCL") is a
Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of
business in New Jersey. On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs
contacted TCL via TCL's website and indicated that
Plaintiffs were interested in selling a Massachusetts film
tax credit. (Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) A representative of TCL,
hereafter referred to as "CEO, " responded, and TCL
ultimately helped Plaintiffs sell the credit to another Rhode
Island company. (Id. ¶¶ 9-11.)
March 25, 2014, Plaintiffs contacted CEO for advice on
financing a new project: a feature length film. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Plaintiffs wanted advice on where to look for lender or
investor financing. (Id.) In response, CEO offered to secure
the financing, and Plaintiffs accepted the offer. (Id. ¶¶
began to report progress as soon as March 28, 2014, e-mailing
Plaintiffs that she had four lenders who were interested in
the project. (Id. ¶ 16.) On May 29, 2014, CEO e-mailed that
she had $25, 000 promised for the project. (Id. ¶ 18.)
Plaintiffs and CEO were in contact on June 3, June 20, and
June 24 via e-mail. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21.) CEO reported that she had
$25, 000 already obtained and tens of thousands more
promised. (Id. ¶ 21.) On June 25, CEO assured Plaintiffs that
they could expect more than $1 million in funding from her
efforts. (Id. ¶ 22.) By July 9, CEO was promising an
additional $250, 000 each from three more lenders. (Id. ¶
23.) Based on these assurances, Plaintiffs began putting
effort and money into their project. (Id. ¶ 24.)
16 and 17, CEO claimed that she had already wired money to
Plaintiffs' bank account in Rhode Island. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27.)
She told them the same on July 23 and August 6. (Id. ¶¶
29-30.) Plaintiffs also received an e-mail purportedly from
TCL's attorney claiming that the funding was on track.
(Id. ¶ 34.) During this period, CEO sent Plaintiffs two wire
transfer "proofs" from Sovereign Bank that
purported to show two money transfers of $750, 000 from TCL
to Plaintiffs' Rhode Island bank account. (Id. ¶ 35.) On
August 8, CEO sent what appeared to be a confirmation from
Santander Bank, assuring Plaintiffs that the wire transfers
had been initiated. (Id.) Plaintiffs never received the
money. (Id.) Plaintiffs confirmed with their bank, Bank of
America, that no wire transfers were pending for their
account and that the confirmations CEO had sent them appeared
to be fraudulent. (Id. ¶ 36.) On August 11, CEO terminated
the project. (Id. ¶ 37.)
believe that TCL's activities on the project were almost
entirely fabricated, including the documentation CEO sent to
Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 36.) No money was ever turned over to
Plaintiffs despite CEO's promises. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs
claim they relied on CEO's assurances in advancing their
project, expending both time and money. (Id. ¶ 24.)
Plaintiffs' Motion ...