Court Opinion

ID: 9939434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:10:49.940731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:14.425165
License: Public Domain

Libertas Funding, LLC v Travelland RV
               2024 NY Slip Op 30415(U)
                    February 6, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 533254/2023
                Judge: Leon Ruchelsman
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:19 PM                                         INDEX NO. 533254/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
           COUNTY OF KINGS: CIVIL TERM: COMMERCIAL PART 8
           -----. -------------- . -------- ... ··------------x
           LIBERTAS FUNDING, LLC,
                                                      Plaintiff,              Decision and order

                           - against -                                     Index.No. 533254/2023

           TRAVELLAND RV, INC. AND KEVIN MICHAEL
           MUNSTERMANN,
                                                     Defendants,                February 6, 2024
           --. - ·--· . ·----· .. · ,----· ·-: ·----------· --·   :---:x
           PRESENT: HON. LEON RUC::HELSMAN                                   ~otion Seq. #1   &   #2

                   The p1aintif:f has moved seeking summary judgement pursuant

           to GPLR §3212 arguing there are no questions of fact the

           defendants ow& the mohef sought.               The defendants have cross-moved

           seeking to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of lack qf

           jurisdiction.       The motions have been opposed respectively.

           Papers were submitted by the parties arid .after reviewing all the

           arguments this court now makes the following determination.

                   On August 7, 2023, the plaintiff a merchant cash advance

           fuhdihg provider entered into a contract with de.fendants who

           reside in Washington state.             Pur.suant to. th.e agreement the.

           plaintiff purchased $198,000 of defendant's future receivable for

           $150,000.      The defendant Kevin Munstermann guaranteed the

           agTeement.      The plaintiff asserts the defendants stopped

           rernitta,nce s in b.Qtober 2 0 2.3 and now owe $15 8 , 819 . 5 0 .        The

           plaintiff asserts. the de-fendants breached t:he agreemen:t by

           changing t:h~ bank whe.re.in the functs were to be withdrawn without

           notifying the      plaintiff anci by failing to pay amounts when due.

                                                     1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:19 PM                                        INDEX NO. 533254/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

           This .a-e.tion- was commen_c-e_d and now the pla,intiff seeks summary
           j.µdgernent arguing the.r;e .can be no: questions .of fact the

           defendants owe the amount outstanding and judgement should be

           granted in their favor·.         The- -def,endant;:s _oppose· the. m9tion arg1,1ing

           there has bE!en no jurisdiction Conferred- upon the def e:ndants- and

           in any event: there are questions of fact which preclude a su!11IIlary

           -determinatio n at this time.

                                       Conclusions_ of Law

                    Where the material facts at i$sue in a case ~~e in disput~

           summary judgment canno1: be .granted ( Zuckerman ·~1. City of New

           ·tork,   49 N.YS2d SS-.7,   427 NYS2d 595     [1980"] )".   Generally, it ·is ;for

           the jury, the trier of fact 'to determine the legal cause of any
           injury, however, where only one conclusi:on rri.ay be drawn from the

            facts then the que·stiort of legal cause m-ay be decided by the

           triai cou:rt as a matter o:f 1 9 w (Marino v; Jarriison, 189 AD3d 1021,

           136NYS3d :324 [2d Dept., 2021).
                    It_ i,s well settl~d that the parties to an agr.eemeht may

            freely select any forum to ·r·.esolve·· -any disputes re.garding the

            interpretatio n. or ·perf.ormance 0,f t_he <:igre'eme.nt {Br·oo.ke Group -v.

            JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 64.0 NYS.2d 479 [1996]).                   Further,

            a forum s-electi.bn cla.use .is pTim? faq;i.·e valid '~1,1nless- it 1·s· .shown

            by t:he c_hqllenging _pa_rty t.o he .unreasonable. , urij ust,       in.

            contrav.erid. oh o.f pubJic policy, invalid due to fr·aud or

                                                     2

                                                  2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:19 PM                           INDEX NO. 533254/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

           overreaching, or it is shown that       a trial iri the selected forum
           would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would,

           for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court'1

            (see, Stravalle v. Land Cargo Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 835 NYS2d 606

            [2d Dept., 2007]),     In this case the agreement states that "any

           lawsuit, action or proceeding arising out of or in connection

           with this Agreement shall be instituted exclusively in any court

           sitting in New York State (the "Acceptable Forums"). Each party

           signing this Agreement agrees that the Acceptable Forums are

           convenient, and irrevocably submits to the jur.isdiction of the

           Acceptable Forums and waives any and all objections to

           inconvenience of the jurisdiction or venue. Should a proceeding

           be initiated in any other forum, the p,arties waive any right to

           oppose any motion or application made by either party to transfer

           such proceeding to an Acceptable Forum'' ( ~ , Agreement of s.ale

           of Future Receipts,
                         .
                               146 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 2]).
                                                      .

                 The defendants argue that notwithstanding the forum

           selec:tion clause,    pursuant to Business Corporation Law. §1314 (b)

           ri.o such basis for jurisdiction exists.      That statute states that

           a nonresident may not maintain an action against a foreign

           :corporation,   The statute does enumerate five· exceptions, namely

            ( 1) the action is brought:.. to recover damages arising   from the
           breach of a contract made or to be performed in New York; (2) the
           subject matter of the litigation is within t'lew York;      (3) t:he

                                               3

                                             3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/06/2024 02:19 PM                                          INDEX NO. 533254/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 48                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/2024

           ·ca,use. -of action .a.rose within New York;           (.4) t.h_e nqn.-domicili ary

           woµlq b.e subj_ect to per.son.al jurisqiction under CPLR §302; and

           (5)   the de.fendarit is a foreign           entity d"oing busine_ss or

           a:uthorized to do b.usine--s:s in: New Yo.rk.           '.!:'he defendants a_ssert

           that none of the exceptions apply and that con:seque·ntly no

           subj e·ct matter jurisdiction has been conferr.ed. _.               T.he plaintiff

           counters that        Business .. Corporation Law -§1314 {b) ,cannot ]par the
           ~ct ion because the plaintiff is a _limited liability company and

           not:. a- corpo-ration ..         Tt is true· that Business: c.orporation -Law

           §1314 (b) only apP,lies            to co_rporatiqns an.ct not lirni.ted liability
           companies (see, ·Pinnacle Business Fundihg LLC v. Muharib,                      2023" WL

           6:94 0304.    [Supreme .Court ""Kiri.gs County 2023] ) .       Thus, ];3µsiQ.es._s

           Corporation Law §l314(b) cannot be valid grounds upon which                          to
           -object to j"urisd-iction .

                  Indeed,.- the:re· are no gro.unds ·to object to jµri.sdict.;Lon .

            Furthe.r, there are no other grounds presented opposing the motion

            seeking, sum+nary judg,ement.            ·Thus,. the motion. ·s_ee,kin9·· summary

            jlidgerne.nt is granted a_n¢l the _cross-moti_on seeking to dismiss is

            hereby denied.
                  So ordered.
                                            ENTER:

            DATED: :Fe_pruaiy 6r 2024
                        B:rooklyn. N. Y..               I-ton.
                                                       ·.JS.C

                                                           4

                                                       4 of 4
[* 4]