IN 2001 SJEF JANSSEN, AT THE MOMENT BELGIAN TRAINER DRESSAGE AND - TopicsExpress



          

IN 2001 SJEF JANSSEN, AT THE MOMENT BELGIAN TRAINER DRESSAGE AND TRAINER OF THE GERMAN RIDER RATH WAS ACCUSED AND CONVICTED AT A US LAWCOURT FOR FRAUD The case published by the official US Lawcourt internet publications. Interesting that in the case of the Danish Rider Helgstrand the National Equine Federation is requesting, the Dutch Federation never investigated in the published case and other cases in NL when S Janssen was Official Dutch Trainer. 270 F.3d 328: John R. Neal and Lea A. Neal, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Sjef Janssen, Defendant-appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT - 270 F.3d 328 Argued: September 24, 2001Decided and Filed: October 23, 2001 .......This tort action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty was brought by plaintiffs, John Neal and his daughter Lea Anne, residents of Tennessee, against Sjef Janssen, a citizen of Belgium. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over defendant. ¶2 Plaintiffs owned a dressage horse named Aristocrat that they wished to sell. Aristocrat was boarded in the Netherlands at the time relevant to this cause of action. In 1997 plaintiffs met with defendant in Florida, where defendant had a house, and arranged for him to serve as their agent in selling Aristocrat. Defendant was familiar with dressage horses and trained riders and horses in the Netherlands. It was understood that defendant would receive the standard 10% commission on any sale. Plaintiffs expected that the horse might sell for about $500,000 due to its performances in dressage competitions. Defendant made phone calls and sent facsimiles to plaintiffs in Tennessee on several occasions in 1997 to discuss the sale of the horse and to present offers to purchase the horse made by third parties. The offers were rejected by plaintiffs because the price was too low. In January 1998, defendant called Tyrone Neal, John Neals son, in Tennessee and stated that he had a possible buyer for Aristocrat for about $310,000. Tyrone Neal told defendant that $310,000 was too low, but defendant told Tyrone that plaintiffs had placed an unrealistically high value on the horse. Defendant negotiated further with the prospective buyer and called back to Tyrone to say that the prospective buyer would pay $312,000. Defendant also told Tyrone during that conversation that because he had been unable to find a buyer at the price plaintiffs were asking, he would forgo his commission if plaintiffs accepted the $312,000 offer. Plaintiffs instructed defendant to sell the horse for $312,000, with no commission going to defendant. Plaintiffs received a wire transfer at their bank in Tennessee from defendant for $311, 964.50 shortly thereafter. ¶3 Plaintiffs subsequently learned, without disclosure from defendant, that the buyer had actually paid defendant $480,000. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendant in the Middle District of Tennessee for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction in lieu of an answer. Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the district judge referred the motion to a magistrate judge for a recommendation. The Magistrate Judge heard oral argument on the motion but did not hold an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied. Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, but the district court adopted the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation and found personal jurisdiction over defendant to be proper. ............The matter was set for trial. Defendant first asked for a continuance of the trial and after it was denied, he informed the court he did not intend to appear for trial and would stand on his jurisdictional argument as a defense. Trial occurred without defendant or his counsel present. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $250,000 compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages. This appeal followed. law.justia/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/270/328/545361/
Posted on: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 06:01:12 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015