Second Circuit – Conspiracy to defraud: FAT Brands Inc. v. Ramjeet, et al.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Conspiracy to defraud

Personal jurisdiction – Sufficiency of complaint

FAT Brands Inc. v. Ramjeet, et al.

21-2023-cv

Judges Walker, Lee, and Robinson

Background: The plaintiff alleged that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defraud it by misleading it as to the source and certainty of deal funding. On appeal, the plaintiff argues it was error to dismiss the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Ruling: The Second Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part. The court held that the court had jurisdiction over two of the defendants because the jurisdictional contacts of their co-conspirators may be imputed to them. The court noted several in-state overt acts that furthered the conspiracy, including a meeting between the plaintiff and others at a New York office. The court also held that the particular defendants were aware of, benefited from, and had the ability to direct or control the conspiracy. The Second Circuit further held that the plaintiff credibly stated a claim for conspiracy and fraud against a third defendant as the amended complaint specifies overt acts to further the scheme and it identified significant monetary damages the plaintiff sustained as a result.

Russell L. Bogart, of Kagen Caspersen & Bogart, for the plaintiff-appellant; Stuart L. Melnick, and Sarah T. Haddad, of Pendulum Legal, for the defendants-appellees; Neil Walsh Pro se defendant-appellant.

Oral argument audio