UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Glenn L. Beane

v. Civil No. 08-cv-236-JL

Opinion No. 2011 DNH 012

Alan F. Beane

OPINION AND ORDER

This action represents one front in two brothers’ longrunning war over the failure of a company they owned, Mii

Technologies, LLC. Plaintiff Glenn L. Beane brought this action

against defendant Alan F. Beane, seeking equitable relief under

the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) to enforce

certain obligations under an employee benefit plan created by Mii

and a predecessor entity. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B)(ii). 

Glenn also sought relief under state law, including a declaration

that his membership in Mii, a limited liability company, ceased

as of February 2004. Both of those claims have since been

resolved, at least for purposes of this action: Glenn has

voluntarily dismissed his ERISA claim without prejudice, and Alan

has consented to the entry of judgment on Glenn’s claim for

declaratory relief. Order of March 22, 2010, at 3-4 (document

no. 70).

The litigation continues, though, because Alan responded to

Glenn’s complaint (after initially moving to dismiss it but then

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 28
withdrawing the motion) with a counterclaim in 14 counts--which

has since grown to 20 counts as the result of several separate

amendments. The gist of the counterclaim is that Glenn caused

Mii’s failure by mismanaging and then misappropriating a crucial

customer relationship, as well as Mii’s intellectual property.1

Part of Glenn’s response to this accusation was to acquire,

for what his attorney acknowledged were “principally strategic”

reasons, an assignment of a bank’s interest in an loan to Mii

which had been secured by its accounts, inventory, equipment, and

general intangibles, but was in default. Glenn proceeded to make

a purported disposition of some of the collateral--including the

very causes of action asserted in the counterclaim here--by

holding a public foreclosure auction. Glenn was the high bidder. 

The numbered claims set forth in the second amended 1

counterclaim are (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied

covenants of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary

duties, (4) breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, (5) “breach of

fiduciary duty of care, diligence, full disclosure and advice,”

(6) “breach of confidential relationship,” (7) misappropriation

of trade secrets, (8) tortious interference with contractual

relations, (9) tortious interference with prospective contractual

relations of Mii, (10) “ownership of intellectual property,”

which seeks an injunction requiring Glenn to transfer certain

rights to Mii, (11) unjust enrichment, (12) “unfair and deceptive

trade practices and acts” in violation of the New Hampshire

Consumer Protection Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A, 

(13) interference with prospective contractual relationships of

Alan, (14) “civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,” (15) wrongful

dissociation of Glenn from the Mii limited liability company, and

(16) “constructive trust and specific performance.”

2

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 2 of 28
He has since moved to substitute himself for Alan as the

plaintiff-in-counterclaim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c), on the

theory that the claims Alan purports to assert now actually

belong to Glenn, and then to voluntarily dismiss those claims

with prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

2

Alan objects to this gambit on three principal grounds:

(1) defects in the security agreement between the bank and Mii

prevented the claims from becoming collateral for the loan in the

first place, excluding them from whatever property Glenn

foreclosed against and purchased, (2) even if the security

agreement was effective as to claims belonging to Mii, most of

the claims asserted in the counterclaim actually belong to Alan

individually, and (3) Alan’s pending personal bankruptcy, In re

Beane, No. 06-5723 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2006), made the

foreclosure void as a violation of the automatic stay, see 

Since Glenn filed this motion, Alan has filed--with leave 2

of court granted in the absence of any objection from Glenn--a

third amended counterclaim asserting four additional numbered

counts. Glenn’s motion to substitute and dismiss, though, is not

directed at those counterclaims, so the court need not consider

whether or not they were included in the collateral allegedly

foreclosed against and purchased by Glenn. In any event, because

those claims arose out of Glenn’s filing of this lawsuit, they

did not exist at the time of the security agreement, so they

could not have been included in it (at least insofar as they are

commercial tort claims). See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 382-A:9-

204(b)(2) & official cmt. 4 (“In order for a security interest in

a tort claim to attach, the claim must be in existence when the

security agreement is authenticated.”).

3

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 3 of 28
11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). Relying on these same theories, Alan has

moved to amend his counterclaim yet again, to add claims for a

declaratory judgment that the foreclosure did not include any of

the other causes of action he asserts here, for damages as a

result of Glenn’s alleged violation of the automatic stay, see

id. § 362(k)(1), and for avoidance of Glenn’s acquisition of any

of Alan’s claims, see id. § 544(a). Finally, based on his view

that the counterclaims actually belong to Mii, not to Alan, Glenn

has moved for Mii’s involuntary joinder as a plaintiff-incounterclaim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2). 

As this court previously determined, it has subject-matter

jurisdiction over Glenn’s state-law claims against Alan under 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (diversity), because Glenn is a New Hampshire

citizen, Alan is a Florida citizen, and Mii is not a necessary

party-defendant to those claims, so its citizenship is

irrelevant. Order of March 22, 2010, at 2 (document no. 70). As

a result, this court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Alan’s counterclaims against Glenn, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), even

though “most if not all” of those claims in fact belong to Mii,

see Order of March 22, 2010, at 3 (document no. 70), and has

elected to do so, based on the expressed preference of both

Beanes for this forum.

4

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 4 of 28
For the reasons explained fully infra, both Glenn’s motion

to substitute and Alan’s motion to amend are denied, and Alan’s

motion to join Mii as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim is denied in

favor of alternative relief. Alan is correct that the security

agreement between Mii and the bank failed to describe any

commercial tort claims with the detail required by New

Hampshire’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. See N.H.

Rev. Stat. Ann. § 382-A:9-108(e)(1). So no such claim was

included in the collateral Glenn foreclosed on and purchased at

auction and, while it is possible that the counterclaim asserts

causes of action that do not qualify as commercial tort claims

under the Code, Glenn does not attempt to make that argument and

therefore has failed to carry his burden to show a security

interest in any claims that are not for commercial torts. This

ruling moots Alan’s proposed additional claims to avoid the

foreclosure and for a declaration that it did not encompass the

counterclaim asserted here.

Alan’s proposed claim that the foreclosure violated the

automatic stay put in place by his bankruptcy is futile, because

the foreclosure gave Glenn possession of Mii’s property, which is

by definition not property of Alan’s bankruptcy estate. See 11

U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). Finally, because this court already ordered

that Mii be joined as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim, see Order of

5

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 5 of 28
March 22, 2010, at 3 (document no. 70), and Alan has not offered

any explanation as to why this has yet to happen, he must cause

Mii’s joinder or explain why particular causes of action in the

counterclaim belong to him personally within 30 days or suffer

the dismissal of the counterclaim with prejudice.

I. Background

Alan filed the first version of the counterclaim against

Glenn in this action in October 2008. Alan had previously

asserted many of the same causes of action in a lawsuit he and

Mii commenced against Glenn (and a company he owns, Glenn L.

Beane, LLC) in this court in 2006, but which was dismissed in

April 2008 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Beane v.

Beane, 2008 DNH 082 (McAuliffe, C.J.). In reaching this

conclusion, Chief Judge McAuliffe rejected the argument that Mii

was a nominal party whose citizenship should be disregarded for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction, ruling that “[t]he rights

upon which plaintiffs base their claims are Mii’s rights, and the

remedies sought would directly benefit Mii,” id. at 15-16

(footnote omitted), and that “Mii is a party that possesses, and

seeks to vindicate, its own rights,” id. at 15 n.10.

Following the dismissal of that action, Glenn commenced this

action against Alan in June 2008. Around the same time, he also

6

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 6 of 28
commenced an action against Mii and other parties in Grafton

County Superior Court. Beane v. Mii Techs., LLC, No. 2008-C-079

(N.H. Super. Ct. June 10, 2008). As just noted, Alan filed the

counterclaim against Glenn in this action around October 2008

and, around the same time, Alan and Mii commenced their own

Grafton County Superior Court action against Glenn. Beane v.

Beane, No. 08-E-270 (N.H. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2008). The claims

in that case (which has since been stayed pending the outcome of

this one) are substantially similar to Alan’s counterclaims in

this case, as well as to his and Mii’s claims against Glenn in

the prior lawsuit they brought in this court.

 Glenn explains that, faced with these multiplicitous (and,

he says, frivolous) suits, he attempted to “take advantage of a

simple procedure to terminate the litigation:” acquiring the

very claims asserted against him by purchasing Mii’s outstanding

debt to Laconia Savings Bank, then foreclosing against the

collateral, which allegedly included the claims. On November 26,

2004, Mii had borrowed $100,000 from Village Bank and Trust

Company, a predecessor to Laconia Savings, repayable in monthly

installments over the next ten years. The promissory note

documenting this debt identifies the loan as number 6673-02, a

“renewal of 6673-01,” and states that it “is separately secured

by: SA-BUS and UCC-3 & UCC-1 previously filed.”

7

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 7 of 28
Together with the note, Glenn has submitted two forms each

labeled “SA-BUS” and entitled “Commercial Security Agreement”

between Mii and Village Bank. The first of these, dated June 30,

2004, states that it secures “loan #6673-01 for $100,000 . . .

maturing 10/30/04” (capitalization corrected), while the second,

dated November 26, 2004, states that it secures “loan #6673-02

. . . maturing 11/16/14.” Thus, as Glenn explains (without the

benefit of direct evidence, but also without contradiction by

Alan), the November 2004 “loan” was in fact “not a fresh

transaction” but an extension of Mii’s time to repay a debt it

had incurred in June 2004.3

The November 2004 note, as well as both the June 2004 and

November 2004 security agreements, each contain a signature line

for “M.I.I. Technologies, L.L.C.” by “Alan F. Beane, President.” 

On both the June note and the November security agreement, the

word “President” has been struck through and the phrase “Secured

Creditor in Possession” written in its place, and Alan’s

signature appears on the signature line. The November security

agreement, however, bears no signature on behalf of either party.

While the note evidencing the June 2004 loan has not been 3

submitted to the court, the security agreement and Alan’s

personal guarantee have.

8

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 8 of 28
 Each of the security agreements gave the bank a security

interest in certain “Property described in this Agreement that

Debtor owns or has sufficient rights in which to transfer an

interest, now or in the future.” The property described

included, in relevant part: 

Accounts and Other Rights to Payment: All rights to

payment, whether or not earned by performance,

including, but not limited to, payment for property or

services sold, leased, rented, licensed, or assigned. 

This includes any rights and interests (including all

liens) which Debtor may have by law or agreement

against any account debtor or obligor of Debtor.

. . .

General Intangibles: All general intangibles

including, but not limited to, tax refunds, patents and

applications for patents, copyrights, trade secrets,

goodwill, trade names, customer lists, permits and

franchises, payment intangibles, computer programs and

all supporting information provided in connection with

a transaction relating to computer programs, and the

right to use Debtor’s name.

Each of the security agreements also contained a “Specific

Property Description” stating that the “Property includes, but is

not limited by,” particular UCC-1 forms on file with the New

Hampshire Secretary of State. Insofar as these filings have been

submitted here, they do not make reference to any commercial tort

claims by Mii, and neither do the security agreements themselves.

Around February 2008, Glenn, through counsel, began

corresponding with Laconia Savings about purchasing an assignment

9

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 9 of 28
of its interest in Mii’s debt. During these negotiations,

Glenn’s counsel stated that the value of the assignment to his

client was “principally strategic, not collection,” and Laconia

Savings stated that it had no executed version of the November

2004 security agreement. The parties ultimately agreed that the

bank would assign the debt to Glenn for $7,000 and executed an

“Assignment of Loan and Loan Documents” to that effect.4

Glenn then sent a “Notification of Public Disposition of

Collateral” to Alan and Mii in October 2009. This document

stated that Glenn, “the holder of Loan and Note No. 6673-02,

originally made by Mii Technologies, LLC to Village Bank and

Trust Company, which loan and note are in default,” would sell

specified “collateral” in a public auction to be held at the

office of Glenn’s attorney on January 15, 2009. The “collateral”

identified was “[a]ny and all claims owned by Mii Technologies,

LLC against Glenn L. Beane and/or Glenn L. Beane, LLC.” The

auction proceeded as scheduled, and Glenn was the highest bidder,

at $1,000. (If any other potential bidders attended, the record

Though the agreement itself recites Glenn’s payment of one 4

dollar “and other good and valuable consideration,” the parties

had in fact agreed in their discussions that “the full

consideration is $7,000.” This was done to accommodate Glenn’s

counsel’s preference for “a document I can attach as an exhibit

to a pleading which doesn’t indicate how much we’re paying.” 

Suffice it to say that this tactic proved ineffective. 

10

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 10 of 28
does not reflect it.) Glenn executed a bill of sale to himself

for “[a]ny and all claims owned by Mii Technologies, LLC against

Glenn L. Beane and/or Glenn L. Beane, LLC” and wrote himself a

check for the purchase price.

A few months later, in April 2009, Glenn filed the instant

motion to substitute himself as the plaintiff-in-counterclaim on

Alan’s claims against him. After filing an objection, as

outlined supra, Alan commenced an adversary proceeding against

Glenn in the Bankruptcy Court claiming that, by foreclosing on

the loan to Mii, he had violated the automatic stay imposed by

Alan’s bankruptcy. Beane v. Beane (In re Beane), No. 09-296

(Bankr. M.D. Fla. May 4, 2009). Though the parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment, they ultimately agreed to dismiss

the adversary proceeding without prejudice so that Alan could

pursue his claim against Glenn as part of this action. Around 5

the same time, Alan filed his instant motion to amend his

counterclaim to seek relief from the foreclosure.

In the meantime, this court stayed this action pending its

receipt of a copy of the Grafton County Superior Court’s final

In endorsing this procedure, the Bankruptcy Court noted 5

that it “ma[de] no determination and express[ed] no opinion on

the validity of [Alan’s] claims or prayers or on either party’s

motion for summary judgment.” Beane v. Beane (In re Beane), No.

09-296 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. June 4, 2010). 

11

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 11 of 28
order in Glenn’s case against Mii (the pendency of which Alan had

raised as a basis for his initial motion to dismiss this action).

As a result of the stay, the court denied Glenn’s motion to

substitute himself as the plaintiff-in-counterclaim (and all

other pending motions) without prejudice. Order of Aug. 3, 2009

(document no. 59).

After reviewing the Superior Court’s order, and receiving a

motion by Alan to lift the stay as well as a motion by Glenn for

voluntary dismissal of his ERISA claim, this court held a status

conference to discuss a number of outstanding issues, including

whether it would lack subject-matter jurisdiction in the absence

of the ERISA claim on the theory that Mii was an indispensable

party to Glenn’s state-law claims. See Order of March 5, 2010

(document no. 69). In its order identifying these issues, the

court noted,

It appears that Mii is the real party in interest to a

number of Alan’s counterclaims, as Chief Judge

McAuliffe ruled in dismissing Alan’s previous suit in

this forum, which asserted those counterclaims as

claims against Glenn, for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction. In fact . . . , that ruling appears to

collaterally estop Alan from arguing to the contrary.

Id. at 6 n.3 (citation omitted).

As a result of its discussion with counsel at the ensuing

conference, the court determined that Glenn’s voluntary dismissal

of his ERISA claim would not deprive the court of subject-matter

12

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 12 of 28
jurisdiction, because Mii was not an indispensable party to

Glenn’s state-law claims, creating diversity jurisdiction over

those claims and authorizing supplemental jurisdiction over

Alan’s counterclaims. Order of March 22, 2010, at 2 (document

no. 70). The court also ruled, however, that Mii “shall be added

as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim, because most if not all of the

counterclaims asserted by Alan actually belong to Mii, as this

court has previously ruled.” Id. at 3 (citing Beane, 2008 DNH

082, 14-16). That has not happened over the intervening nine

months. In the same order, the court lifted the stay and

reinstated Glenn’s motion to substitute, together with the

supporting memorandum, objection, reply, and surreply. Id. at 4-

5.

II. Analysis

A. Glenn’s motion to substitute

Rule 25 provides that “[i]f an interest is transferred, the

action may be continued by or against the original party unless

the court, on motion, orders the transferee to be substituted in

the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c). Casting himself as the

transferee of the claims asserted against him here by virtue of

the foreclosure and auction, Glenn seeks to be substituted for

Alan as the plaintiff-in-counterclaim and, following this

13

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 13 of 28
substitution, to exercise his prerogative to dismiss the

counterclaim voluntarily under Rule 41(a)(2).6

In addition to his many substantive objections to this

relief, Alan argues that, because Glenn seeks dismissal of the

counterclaim following the substitution, his motion should be

treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), with the

result that materials outside the pleadings cannot be considered. 

See, e.g., Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524

F.3d 315, 320-21 (1st Cir. 2008). But, as one court has

observed, Rule 25(c)--unlike Rule 12(b)(6)--“does not specify a

method for deciding motions or a standard to use in determining

whether a motion can be decided on the papers,” leaving courts

the discretion to use any procedure sufficient “to accord due

process to the parties.” Luxliner P.L. Exp., Co. v. RDI/

Luxliner, Inc., 13 F.3d 69, 72 (3d Cir. 1993).

That court went on to hold that if the record on a Rule

25(c) motion discloses “one or more genuine issues of material

Glenn also invokes Rule 17(a), which requires the court, 6

before dismissing an action that is not prosecuted in the name of

the real party in interest, to allow that party a reasonable time

“to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 17(a)(3). But “[w]here, as here, there has been a

transfer of interest during the pendency of the action, the court

must apply Rule 25(c), rather than Rule 17, to determine whether

a substitution of parties should occur.” Pacamor Bearings, Inc.

v. Minebea Co., 892 F. Supp. 347, 360 (D.N.H. 1995).

14

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 14 of 28
fact, due process requires that a district court judge hear the

evidence to assess for himself the credibility, or lack thereof,

of one side as opposed to the other.” Id. In the absence of a

genuine factual dispute, however, the court can simply grant the

motion, even if doing so would affect the liability of one side

or the other (just like a court does when it grants a motion for

summary judgment under Rule 56). See id. at 72-73.

The record here permits this summary-judgment type approach: 

while the parties disagree sharply over the legal significance of

the facts underlying the motion, by and large they do not

disagree over the facts themselves. Cf. DiMercurio v. Sphere

Drake Ins. Co., 202 F.3d 71, 74 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that

summary judgment is appropriate in that context). The court can

therefore rule on Glenn’s motion to substitute by looking to

materials beyond the pleadings, and without conducting an

evidentiary hearing. See Luxliner, 13 F.3d at 72.

Under New Hampshire’s version of the Uniform Commercial

Code, “a security interest is enforceable against the debtor and

third parties with respect to the collateral only if,” in

relevant part, “the debtor has authenticated a security agreement

that provides a description of the collateral.” N.H. Rev. Stat.

15

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 15 of 28
Ann. § 382-A:9-203. Alan argues that the alleged security 7

interest in the counterclaim is not enforceable because Mii’s

security agreements with the bank were neither authenticated nor

provided the requisite description of the collateral. The court

need not reach the first argument because the second one is

correct, at least so far as the counterclaim asserts commercial

tort claims.

While “a description of personal or real property is

sufficient, whether or not it is specific, if it reasonably

identifies what is described,” that rule is subject to certain

exceptions. Id. § 382-A:9-108(a). One of those exceptions is

that “[a] description only by type of collateral defined [in

Article 9] is an insufficient description of . . . a commercial

tort claim.” Id. § 382-A:9-108(e)(1). As the official code

commentary explains, this provision “does not require a

description to be specific. For example, a description such as

‘all tort claims arising out of the explosion of debtor’s

factory’ would suffice.” Id. cmt. 5.

Glenn argues that the causes of action set forth in the

counterclaim are sufficiently described in the provisions of the

security agreements defining the collateral to include “Accounts

The parties agree that New Hampshire’s version of Article 9 7

of the Code controls the effect of the security agreement here. 

16

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 16 of 28
and Other Rights to Payment” and “Payment Intangibles.” But

those provisions do not even refer to commercial tort claims by

type, let alone contain the additional description required by 

§ 108(e)(1). Nor, for that matter, does anything else in the

agreements or the incorporated UCC filings. Mii’s security

agreements with the bank, then, were not effective to convey

security interests in any of those claims under § 9-203. See

Helms v. Certified Packaging Corp., 551 F.3d 675, 681 (7th Cir.

2008). Furthermore, Glenn’s argument that commercial tort claims

can amount to “rights to payment” or “payment intangibles” is

foreclosed by the official code commentary, which explains that

it is not until such a claim “has been settled and reduced to a

contractual obligation to pay” that the resulting “right to

payment becomes a payment intangible and ceases to be a claim

arising in tort.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 382-A:9-109 cmt. 15;

see also In re Zych, 379 B.R. 857, 864 n.7 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2007)

(rejecting the same argument).

It is perhaps less clear whether all of the 16 separately

numbered counts set forth in the second amended counterclaim

qualify as “commercial tort claims” under the Code. Article 9

defines “commercial tort claim,” in relevant part, as “a claim

arising in tort with respect to which . . . the claimant is an

organization.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 382-A:9-102(a)(13)

17

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 17 of 28
(formatting altered). While there is no question that Mii is an

“organization,” there might be some question as to whether every

count asserted in the counterclaim is “a claim arising in tort.” 

See note 1, supra. But this is not a question that Glenn

attempts to answer, even though Alan asserts in his objection to

Glenn’s motion that all of the counts fit that description, and

even though a party claiming a security interest in another’s

property generally bears the burden of proving that the security

interest exists. See, e.g., Simon v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (In

re Babaeian Transp. Co.), 206 B.R. 536, 549 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.

1997); State Sav. Bank v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 431 N.W.2d 383,

386 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988); McKinley v. State Dep’t of Motor

Vehicles, 39 P.3d 920, 924 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). Indeed, Glenn’s

filings say nothing whatsoever in response to Alan’s argument

that his claims are for commercial torts.

Because Mii’s agreements with the bank did not give it a

security interest in any commercial tort claims, and because

Glenn has not carried his burden to show that the counterclaim

asserts any non-tort claims against him, he has failed to show

that he is a “transferee” of the counterclaim under Rule 25(c). 

His motion to substitute himself as the plaintiff-in-counterclaim

and then to dismiss the counterclaim voluntarily is denied.

18

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 18 of 28
B. Alan’s motion to amend

For his part, Alan moves to amend his counterclaim to add

counts for (1) a declaratory judgment that, for a number of

reasons, Glenn’s foreclosure on the bank’s loan to Mii did not

include any of the claims set forth in the counterclaim,

(2) avoidance of any “security interests purportedly foreclosed”

by Glenn under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a), and (3) relief against Glenn

on the theory that the foreclosure violated the automatic stay

imposed by Alan’s bankruptcy filing, see id. § 362(a), including

“compensatory damages and equitable relief,” see id. § 362(k)(1). 

Glenn objects to the amendment on various grounds, including

that, by seeking to add claims challenging the validity of the

foreclosure, Alan is trying to sidestep the motion to substitute.

Regardless of the amendment’s intended purpose, the fact

remains that the court is denying the motion to substitute

because Glenn has failed to show that the foreclosure extended to

any of the causes of action set forth in the counterclaim. This

ruling moots Alan’s proposed counterclaims for a declaration that

the foreclosure did not in fact extend to those claims and for

avoidance of the foreclosure. The ruling also moots Alan’s

proposed counterclaim alleging that the foreclosure violated the

automatic stay, at least insofar as that counterclaim seeks

“equitable relief” on that basis. So Alan’s motion to amend is

19

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 19 of 28
denied as moot insofar as it seeks to add these claims for

equitable relief from the foreclosure. 

Alan also seeks compensatory damages for Glenn’s alleged

violation of the automatic stay. This claim is not moot, but it

is futile. As the court of appeals has held, “futility is fully

sufficient to justify the denial of a motion to amend.” Hatch v.

Dep’t for Children, Youth & Their Families, 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st

Cir. 2001). Where, as here, an amendment is proffered before

“discovery has been closed and a summary judgment motion has been

docketed,” futility “is gauged by reference to the liberal

criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),” governing

motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. Under this

standard, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible

on its face.’” Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

Alan’s proposed counterclaim alleging that Glenn violated the

automatic stay does not meet this standard.

With a number of exceptions not relevant here, the

Bankruptcy Code provides that the filing of a bankruptcy petition

“operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . any act

to obtain possession or property of the estate or to exercise

control over property of the estate,” among other actions. 11

20

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 20 of 28
U.S.C. § 362(a)(3) (formatting altered). The Code also provides

(again, with an exception not relevant here) that “an individual

injured by any willful violation of a stay provided by this

section shall recover actual damages, including costs and

attorneys’ fees, and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover

punitive damages.” Id. § 362(k)(1).

As one of his proposed counterclaims, Alan alleges that

Glenn willfully violated the automatic stay imposed when Alan

filed for bankruptcy, because the foreclosure amounted to an “act

to obtain possession of property of the estate or to exercise

control over property of the estate” under § 362(a)(3). The most

glaring problem with this theory is that, through the foreclosure

and auction, Glenn purported to obtain only “claims owned by Mii

Technologies, LLC against Glenn L. Beane and/or Glenn L. Beane,

LLC.” He did not purport to obtain any claims owned by Alan

individually. Indeed, Alan himself points out that the documents

effecting the loan to Mii “never granted [the bank] a security

interest in any . . . personal property owned by him” personally,

so that neither the bank nor Glenn “held or ever could possibly

have held any security interest” in his claims against Glenn.8

It follows that, even if certain of the causes of action 8

set forth in the counterclaim belong to Alan individually, the

foreclosure and auction did not violate the automatic stay.

21

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 21 of 28
 Section 362(a)(3), by its terms, applies the automatic stay

to acts “to obtain possession of . . . or to exercise control

over property of the estate” (emphasis added). The Code defines

“property of the estate” to include, among other things, “all

legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the

commencement of the case.” Id. § 541(a)(1). Though, as Alan

emphasizes, this provision “is construed broadly,” Abboud v.

Ground Round, Inc. (In re Ground Round, Inc.), 482 F.3d 15, 17

(1st Cir. 2007), it does not bring Mii’s claims against Glenn

into Alan’s bankruptcy estate.

In applying § 541(a)(1), courts look to state law to

determine “the existence and extent of the debtor’s interest” in

particular property. Id. (citing Butner v. United States, 440

U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979)). New Hampshire law expressly provides

that, while “[a] limited liability interest is intangible

personal property,” an individual “member has no interest in

limited liability company property.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 

§ 304-C:45. So Alan has no ownership interest in any of Mii’s

property, including its claims against Glenn.

It follows that those claims are not property of his

bankruptcy estate under § 541(a)(1). In fact, a number of courts

have ruled that property owned by the debtor’s limited liability

company was not property of his bankruptcy estate. See, e.g., In

22

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 22 of 28
re Brittain, 435 B.R. 318, 322 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2010); Harder v.

Premierwest Bank (In re Harder), 413 B.R. 827, 835 (Bankr. D. Or.

2009); In re HSM Kennewick, L.P., 347 B.R. 569, 571-72 (Bankr.

N.D. Tex. 2006); Assocs. Commercial Corp. v. Rodio (In re Rodio),

257 B.R. 699, 701 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2001). Alan provides no

authority to the contrary. Instead, he argues that he personally

owns Mii’s claims against Glenn because (a) Mii “no longer

transacts business,” (b) Alan’s bankruptcy estate is Mii’s

“largest creditor,” and (c) he “took possession of all of the

assets” of Mii in February 2004. These arguments are unavailing.

First, while Mii was administratively dissolved by the New

Hampshire Secretary of State in 2007, that action did not

terminate its existence, but prohibited it from “carry[ing] on

any business except that necessary to wind up and liquidate its

business and affairs,” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 304-C:53, II,

including to “[p]rosecute and defend suits,” id. § 304-C:56,

II(a); cf. Embassy Software Corp. v. eCopy, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 2d

225, 230-33 (D.N.H. 2009) (applying identical provisions of New

Hampshire’s Corporations Act). Mii’s dissolution, then, did not

simply drop its claims against Glenn into Alan’s lap: at most,

it allowed him to bring those claims “in the name of, and for and

on behalf of, the limited liability company.” N.H. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 304-C:56, II(a). 

23

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 23 of 28
Second, and relatedly, Alan’s claimed status as Mii’s

“largest creditor” (even if accurate) does not give him ownership

of the company’s assets either. While New Hampshire law

authorizes the distribution of a limited liability company’s

assets to “members who are creditors in satisfaction of [its]

liabilities,” that cannot occur without the prior issuance of a

certificate of dissolution from the Department of Revenue. Id.

§§ 304-C:58, I-II(a). There is no indication that has occurred

and, even if it had, Alan could still not necessarily convey

Mii’s claims against Glenn to himself. See id. § 304-C:44, I

(preventing distributions to members when the company’s remaining

assets would be insufficient to satisfy its other liabilities).

Third, Alan’s claim that he “took possession” of Mii’s

assets in February 2004 (even if accurate) does not itself give

him ownership of its claims against Glenn. Alan argues that, by

doing so, he effectively “foreclosed” on his security interest in

any claims against Glenn. But Alan’s security agreement with Mii

did not even mention any commercial tort claims against Glenn,

let alone sufficiently describe them as required by N.H. Rev.

Stat. Ann. § 382-A:9-108(e)(1), and Alan, like Glenn, does not

identify any non-tort claims in his counterclaim. To the 9

Furthermore, the security agreement is dated January 2002, 9

before the claims against Glenn even arose. See note 2, supra.

24

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 24 of 28
contrary, in opposing Glenn’s motion to substitute, Alan argues

that all of the causes of action set forth in the counterclaim

are commercial tort claims. See Part II.A, supra. So Alan is

hoist on his own petard. Because the security agreement with Mii

does not sufficiently describe its claims against Glenn, they

were not included in the collateral on which he allegedly

“foreclosed” in February 2004 and therefore do not belong to him

(aside from any other potential problems with this argument,

which this court need not and does not reach yet).

 To recap, Glenn foreclosed against and bought at auction

only Mii’s claims against him, and those claims indeed belong to

Mii, not to Alan personally. So this was not an act to obtain

possession or control of or to exercise control over “property of

the estate” of Alan’s bankruptcy under § 541(a), and therefore

not a violation of the automatic stay under § 362(a)(3). Alan’s

proposed counterclaim for damages against Glenn under § 362(a)(3)

is futile. Because, as already discussed, his other proposed

counterclaims are moot, his motion to amend is denied altogether.

C. Glenn’s motion to add Mii as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim

Finally, Glenn has filed a motion for Mii’s involuntary

joinder as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim, arguing that its

continued absence is creating unnecessary uncertainty over this

25

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 25 of 28
court’s ability to adjudicate the counterclaims. The court

agrees. Indeed, this court has already ruled that Mii “shall be

added as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim, because most if not all of

the counterclaims asserted by Alan actually belong to Mii, as

this court has previously ruled.” Order of Mar. 22, 2010, at 3

(document no. 70) (citing Beane, 2008 DNH 082, 14-16). The court

issued this ruling, moreover, following a status conference with

counsel, at which it expressed its view (as it had done in a

prior written order) that Mii should be joined as a plaintiff-incounterclaim and counsel for Alan--Mii’s sole remaining member--

offered no objection to that course of action. Yet, more than

ten months later, Mii has yet to be joined, and Alan has not

explained why (he filed no response to Glenn’s motion for

joinder).

The court notes that, in objecting to Glenn’s motion for

substitution, Alan does argue that some of the causes of action

in the counterclaim belong to him individually, rather than to

Mii. But that argument does not address Chief Judge McAuliffe’s

previous ruling that the claims set forth against Glenn in the

Beanes’ prior lawsuit in this court (which, again, are

substantially similar to those set forth in the counterclaim

here) are founded upon Mii’s rights, not Alan’s--nor this court’s

view that the ruling collaterally estops Alan from arguing to the

26

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 26 of 28
contrary here. Even without regard to these prior rulings,

moreover, Alan’s argument addresses only some of the causes of

action set forth in the counterclaim, not all of them.

Accordingly, within 30 days of this order, Alan shall either

(1) cause Mii’s joinder as a plaintiff-in-counterclaim or 

(2) file a memorandum, not to exceed 25 pages, explaining in

detail which of the numbered causes of action set forth in the

third amended complaint belong to him personally, taking into

account Chief Judge McAuliffe’s prior ruling and its collateral

estoppel effect, as just discussed. Glenn will then have 14 days

to file a responsive memorandum, if he chooses, not to exceed 15

pages. The court will thereafter rule on which causes of action,

if any, belong to Alan, and dismiss the remaining causes of

action without prejudice. If Alan neither joins Mii nor files

the memorandum on or before the deadline, the counterclaim shall

be dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. This relief, which

will ensure that Glenn is not forced to defend himself against

claims that only a non-party can properly assert, moots his

motion for the involuntary joinder of Mii as a plaintiff-incounterclaim toward that end. 

27

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 27 of 28
III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Glenn’s motion for substitution

and voluntary dismissal is DENIED, Alan’s motion to amend his 10

counterclaim is DENIED, and Glenn’s motion for involuntary 11

joinder is DENIED as moot in light of the alternative relief 12

ordered in Part II.C.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: January 24, 2011

cc: W.E. Whittington, Esq.

William S. Gannon, Esq.

Document no. 10 42.

Document no. 11 73.

Document no. 12 75.

28

Case 1:08-cv-00236-JL Document 77 Filed 01/24/11 Page 28 of 28