Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Gurusamy

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 14, 2017

RONALD A. SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
RADHAKRISHNAN GURUSAMY, TECHNOSOFT CORPORATION, and SUNRIDGE GROUP, LLC Defendant.

          RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is Defendant Radhakrishnan Gurusamy's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) [filed December 29, 2016; ECF No. 22]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 72.1(c), the Honorable Raymond P. Moore referred the matter to this Court for recommendation. ECF No. 25. For the reasons that follow, the Court respectfully recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be denied.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         I. Statement of Facts

         The following are factual allegations made by Plaintiff in his Complaint and Response, and offered by Defendant Radhakrishnan Gurusamy for jurisdictional analysis. Plaintiff's allegations are taken as true for analysis under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). See, e.g., Behagen v. Amateur Basketball Ass'n, 744 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1984) (“[In] a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . . . [t]he allegations in the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits.”).

         On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff accepted a position as Defendant Technosoft's Senior Director of Business Development. Compl. ¶¶ 1-4, ECF No. 1. Technosoft is a Michigan corporation that provides information technology, business process management, and consulting services to clients around the world. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 2, ECF No. 22; Compl. ¶ 2; Aff. of Radhakrishnan Gurusamy ¶ 8, ECF No. 22-1. Plaintiff's responsibilities included selling large information technology and software projects throughout Colorado, and other states in the western United States. Compl. ¶ 2; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss ¶ 4, ECF No. 24. Based on pre-employment discussions with Technosoft's representatives, Plaintiff believed he would earn a 10% to 12% commission rate, which would equate to approximately $550, 000 per year. Compl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff's main contact inside Technosoft was Glen Higgins-Technosoft's Senior Vice President of Sales. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, 13. Plaintiff's only pre-employment conversation with Gurusamy-Technosoft's President and Chairman of the Board-occurred during Plaintiff's interview at Technosoft's headquarters in Michigan . Aff. of Radhakrishnan Gurusamy ¶¶ 7, 12-13; Compl. ¶¶ 32-33.

         After Plaintiff began his employment, Technosoft did not provide documents confirming its compensation plan and commission percentages, despite numerous requests from Plaintiff. Compl. ¶¶ 7-9. Additionally, Technosoft did not provide Plaintiff with the necessary technology to perform his responsibilities. Id. at ¶ 12. On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff complained to Technosoft's Legal Director about the preceding issues. Id. at ¶ 13. The following day, Technosoft terminated Plaintiff's employment. Id. at ¶ 14.

         II. Procedural History

         Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 5, 2016 against Gurusamy, Technosoft, Richard Penington, and Sunridge Group, LLC. Plaintiff brings six claims for relief: (1) civil conspiracy, (2) retaliation, (3) luring and fraudulent inducement, (4) breach of contract, (5) emotional distress, and (6) intentional fraud and misrepresentation. Compl. ¶¶ 15-59. Generally, Plaintiff alleges representatives of Technosoft conspired to fraudulently induce Plaintiff to leave his prior employment, and then retaliated against him for complaining to Technosoft's legal department. Id.

         On December 28, 2016, Technosoft filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF No. 16. Although Technosoft denies or states that it lacks knowledge over Plaintiff's substantive allegations, Technosoft does not contend that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. Id. Technosoft also asserts a counterclaim against Plaintiff for deceit in the hiring process. Id. at 12-15.

         Gurusamy responded to Plaintiff's Complaint with the present Motion, which challenges this Court's personal jurisdiction over him. ECF No. 22. Gurusamy asserts that he is a Michigan resident who has traveled to Colorado on behalf of Technosoft only once, which was for an unrelated client dinner. Aff. of Radhakrishnan Gurusamy ¶¶ 4, 9. Additionally, Gurusamy contends his only conversations with Plaintiff occurred at Technosoft's office in Michigan. Id. at ¶ 12. In response, Plaintiff does not contend Gurusamy has any direct contacts with Colorado. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss. Instead, Plaintiff asserts the Court should impute Technosoft's contacts with Colorado to Gurusamy, because Technosoft is Gurusamy's alter ego. Id. at ¶ 1.

         Gurusamy filed a Reply on January 12, 2017. ECF No. 30. In support of his Reply, Gurusamy attached a second affidavit, which provides facts rebutting Plaintiff's alter-ego argument. ECF No. 30-1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a surreply without seeking permission from the Court. ECF No. 33. After Plaintiff realized that he is not automatically entitled to a surreply, he filed a motion to obtain leave to file a surreply on January 26, 2017. ECF No. 38. Because Gurusamy attached a new affidavit to his Reply, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion only to the extent it directly rebuts the facts Gurusamy alleges in his second affidavit. ECF No. 40.

         On February 9, 2017, the Court held a hearing regarding the present Motion. See ECF No. 48. Specifically, the Court asked the parties to present argument on whether Gurusamy was a primary participant in the actions giving rise to this Court's personal jurisdiction over Technosoft. ECF No. 42.

         LEGAL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.