UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Jardin Hill, LLC,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18cv187

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

New City Advisors, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

filed by Defendant Green Bank, N.A. (Doc. 10); the Motion to Stay and to Compel 

Arbitration filed by Defendants Phoenix Restaurant Group, LLC, Rodizio Corporate, and

Ivan Utera (Doc. 15); the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendants 

New City Advisors, LLC, Lili Wang, and Yannan Wang (Doc. 26); and the Motion to 

Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendants John Cannizzaro, Ryan Wilmer (Doc. 

27).

This case arises out of an agreement between Plaintiff Jardin Hill, LLC and 

Defendant New City Advisors, LLC (“NCA”) to form a partnership under the United States

EB-5 visa Program to allow Chinese investors to provide the seed money to construct 

and operate eight Brazilian Rodizio Grill restaurants in Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Michigan, 

Arkansas and Alabama. (Doc. 1, PAGEID 14, ¶ 39). Jardin Hill is a member of Lumen 

Point Capital Fund I, LLC, which is a member of MGMT, LLC, which in turn is the general 

partner for RG Opportunities I, LP (“RGO”). (Doc. 1, PAGEID 8, ¶ 14). 

Central to Plaintiff’s Complaint is an interpleader complaint filed by Defendant 

Case: 1:18-cv-00187-MRB Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/25/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 422
2

Green Bank, N.A. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,

Houston Division: Case No. 4:18-cv-00465; Green Bank, National Association v. RG 

Opportunities, LP. and New City Advisors, LLC. (Doc. 1, PAGEID 7, ¶ 5). Green Bank 

filed the interpleader action because it could not determine the rightful owner of over 

$5,000,000 in an escrow account allegedly controlled by RGO and NCA. The funds in 

the account were paid by the investors and were intended to be used to fund the 

operations of the Brazilian Rodizio Grill restaurants. (Doc. 1, PAGEID 16, ¶ 47). Plaintiffs 

claim that they are entitled to these funds and seek release of the funds for Plaintiffs’ use.

On March 8, 2018, the Texas court granted Green Bank’s motion to deposit funds 

into the court registry. Green Bank the deposited funds in the amount of $5,250,336.00. 

The Texas court later stayed the matter while RGO participated in a mediation of litigation 

filed by Padre Grill, LLC against RGO in in Hamilton County, Indiana: Padre Grill, LLC v. 

RG Opportunities I, L.P., Cause No. 29D01-1802-PL-1355. Defendants John Cannizzaro 

and Ryan Wilmer are owners of Padre Grill. (Doc. 1, PAGEID 10, ¶ 24). Padre Grill and 

RGO reached a settlement of the disputes between them in the Indiana action.

As a result of the settlement, on January 22, 2020, the Texas court granted Padre 

Grill and RGO’s joint motion and stipulation to release $1,850,000.00 of the funds to 

Padre Grill; and granted RGO’s Motion to disburse the remaining funds to RGO.

This Court may properly raise the jurisdictional issue of mootness sua sponte. See 

Zeune v. Mohr, No. 2:14-CV-153, 2015 WL 3544662, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2015)

(citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) 

(“Mootness is a jurisdictional question because the Court is not empowered to decide 

moot questions or abstract propositions ....” (internal quotations marks and citations 

Case: 1:18-cv-00187-MRB Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/25/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 423
3

omitted)); and Berger v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bar Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir.1993) 

(“Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental matters which [a court] may review sua 

sponte”)).

“‘Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or 

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.'” Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 

508, 512 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Int'l Union v. Dana Corp., 697 F.2d 718, 720–21 (6th 

Cir.1983)). Generally speaking, “[s]ettlement of a plaintiff's claims moots an action.” 

Pettrey v. Enter. Title Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 701, 703 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Brunet v. 

City of Columbus, 1 F.3d 390, 399 (6th Cir. 1993)).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon escrowed investment funds 

which were previously held by Green Bank. Because the funds have been released to 

RGO, Plaintiffs no longer have a live case or controversy and this case is moot. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED; the pending motions listed above are 

DENIED as MOOT; and this case CLOSED and TERMINATED from the active docket of 

this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Michael R. Barrett

JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

Case: 1:18-cv-00187-MRB Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/25/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 424