Court Opinion

ID: 9952879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 20:04:03.206061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:34.244285
License: Public Domain

SUPERIOR COURT
                                                OF THE
                                    STATE OF DELAWARE

    VIVIAN L. MEDINILLA                                              LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
                    JUDGE                                            500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 10400
                                                                            WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3733
                                                                              TELEPHONE (302) 255-0626

                                         March 20, 2024

    Richard Rollo, Esquire                                Shaun Michael Kelly, Esquire
    Travis S. Hunter, Esquire                             Lauren P. DeLuca, Esquire
    Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.                       Connolly Gallagher LLP
    920 North King Street                                 1202 North Market Street
    Wilmington, Delaware 19801                            Wilmington, DE 19801

         Re:   Jonathan D. Logan v. Loco Florida, LLC et al.,
               C.A. No. N23C-10-208 VLM CCLD

Dear Counsel,

         This is the Court’s ruling on the Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay.

Having considered the parties’ full briefing and for the reasons set forth below, the

Intervenor’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED in favor of the Florida Action.

                                   I.    BACKGROUND1

1
  The facts are drawn from the Complaint, and the documents it incorporates by reference. The
Court also refers to the allegations from public filings in the pending Florida litigation between
the parties, Jonathan D. Logan et al. v. Janice Logan et al., 2023-CA-1002-NC (Fl. Cir. Ct.) and
Janice Logan v. Jonathan Logan et al., 2023-CA-1280-NC (Fl. Cir. Ct.) (consolidated into the
1002 Action). DRE 202(d)(1)(C) permits judicial notice of “the records of the court in which the
action is pending and of any other court of this State or federal court sitting in or for this State….”
The Court may take judicial notice of court filings “for certain limited purposes, such as to
understand the nature and grounds for rulings” made by the court in which the documents were
filed.” In re Rural Metro Corp. S’holders Litig., 2013 WL 6634009, at *9 (Del. Ch. Dec. 17,
2013). It may not, however, take judicial notice of such filings for the truth of their contents. Id.
          On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff Jonathan D. Logan initiated this action by

filing a Complaint against Defendants Loco Florida, LLC (“Loco”) and Smart

Communications Yacht Holding, LLC (“Yacht”), seeking declarations that he is the

sole member and manager of Loco and Yacht, and that both were validly converted

into Delaware entities.2

          Loco and Yacht were allegedly formed as Florida limited liability companies

in 2020 and March 2022, respectively.3 Loco owns assets that include a warehouse

in Seminole, Florida, which was purchased for approximately $1.1 million.4 Yacht

owns assets that include a 100’ Riva Cosaro, which was purchased for approximately

$10 million.5

          In 2021, Jonathan’s father, James Logan, formed the James Logan Family

Trust (the “Trust”).6 He and his wife, Janice Logan, the Intervenor in this action,

were the Co-Trustees. 7 In September 2022, James purportedly transferred his

member interests in Loco and Yacht to the Trust.8 James died nearly one month

later.9

2
  Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Compl.”).
3
  Id. ¶¶ 1, 2.
4
  Id. ¶ 1.
5
  Id. ¶ 4.
6
  Id.
7
  Id.
8
  Id. ¶¶ 4, 11. The Court utilizes the parties’ first names for ease of reference only.
9
  Id.
                                                  2
       A. The Florida Action

       On February 27, 2023, Jonathan and Smart Communications Holding, Inc.

(“SCH”) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit in Sarasota

County, Florida Probate Division (Florida Court) against Janice and Janice’s

daughter, asserting claims for breach of trust and seeking declarations relating to the

capacity in which claims may be pursued, and the effect of SCH’s purported

shareholders’ agreement.10 Shortly thereafter, Janice filed her original complaint

on behalf of the Trust, and directly and derivatively on behalf of SCH and Loco in

the Florida Court against Jonathan, SCH, and Loco.11 She amended that complaint

in August 2023,12 to include allegations that are particularly alarming.13

       The amended complaint in Florida consists of five counts. Count I seeks

declarations concerning the validity of the purported shareholders’ agreement of

10
   Id. ¶ 4, n.1; Intervenor’s Opening Brief in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss or Stay (the
“Motion”), Ex. 4. (Jonathan D. Logan, et al. v. Janice Logan, et al., 2023-CA-1002-NC (Fl. Cir.
Ct.)).
11
   See Motion, Ex. 10.
12
   Id., Ex. 5A.
13
   See, e.g., id. “Jon was convicted of Felony Aggravated Stalking in 2008 for harassing and
intimidating a business associate and the associate’s wife with whom Jon worked on a car
dealership venture” (¶ 17); “Jon held James and Janice at gunpoint, hit his father’s face, and
demanded that James transfer his shares to Jon. He also smacked the phone out of his mother’s
hand when she tried to call 911” (¶ 32); “he vandalized his mother’s car” (¶ 33); “On Saturday,
August 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM, Jon sent an email to his parents from his Smart Communications
email address, threatening to ‘Burn your [expletive] house down’” (¶ 34); “He warned his father
‘Don’t test me’; ‘I really hope you fix yourself because you will be dead soon’; and, ‘I have zero
patience left for you and I am not one to [expletive] with on what I created with sheer willpower
and brains. If you, or Janice or Alexis try and take anymore from me, I am prepared to do things
the normal human could never fathom’” (¶ 40).
                                                3
SCH; Count II is a claim for director liability; Counts III and V are direct and

derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty; and Count IV seeks to appoint a

temporary custodian of SCH. Count III further relates to Yacht’s assets, which

Janice alleges Jonathan improperly purchased with SCH’s funds. 14 The Court

consolidated these actions (together, the “Florida Action”).

       On July 20, 2023, the Florida Court considered Janice’s motion for a

temporary injunction, seeking, in part, an order finding that Janice had a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits of her claims.15 The Florida Court granted that

motion. 16     After that ruling, Jonathan submitted articles of conversion to the

Secretary of State of the State of Florida, converting Yacht and Loco into Delaware

entities. 17   Jonathan then moved to dismiss counts II-V of Janice’s amended

complaint,18 which the Florida Court denied.19

       Because of the conversions and Jonathan’s creation of a new Delaware entity

(i.e., Smart Communications Holding, LLC (“SCH LLC”)), Janice again sought

relief from the Florida Court and filed a motion for contempt of the temporary

14
   Motion at II.A. The Motion omitted page numbers, so the Court refers to the section headings.
15
   Id., Ex. 10.
16
   Id., Ex. 6.
17
   Compl. ¶ 23; id., Ex. C.
18
   Motion, Ex. 8.
19
   Id. Ex. 9.
                                               4
injunction order and a request to appoint a temporary custodian. 20                  After the

hearing, the parties, including SCH LLC, agreed to additional injunctive relief.21

       On January 31, 2024, the Florida Court, in Phase 1 of its proceedings,

concluded a three-day trial to resolve Count II, declaring SCH’s shareholders’

agreement invalid and unenforceable.22 The Florida Court also found that Janice

owned 50% of the shares of SCH.23 The Florida Court is expected to address the

remaining counts in Phase II after the parties attend mediation.24

       B. This Action

       On October 23, 2023, during the pendency of the Florida Action and

approximately one week after the Florida Court denied his Motion to Dismiss

therein, Jonathan filed his Complaint in this Court.                 Specifically, he seeks

declarations under 10 Del. C. § 6501, and 6 Del. C. § 18-11025 that he is the sole

20
   Motion Section IV; id., Ex. 15.
21
   Intervenor’s Rely Brief in Support of Her Motion to Dismiss or Stay (“Reply”), Ex. 2.
22
   Reply, Ex. 4 at 2.
23
   Id.
24
   Reply at 3.
25
   Jonathan invokes 6 Del C. § 18-110, but that statute confers jurisdiction to the Court of
Chancery, not this Court. See 6 Del. C. § 18-110 (“(a) Upon application of any member or
manager, the Court of Chancery may hear and determine the validity of any admission, election,
appointment, removal or resignation of a manager of a limited liability company, and the right of
any person to become or continue to be a manager of a limited liability company, and, in case the
right to serve as a manager is claimed by more than 1 person, may determine the person or persons
entitled to serve as managers; and to that end make such order or decree in any such case as may
be just and proper, with power to enforce the production of any books, papers and records of the
limited liability company relating to the issue.”).
                                               5
member and manager of Loco and Yacht, and that Loco and Yacht were validly

converted to Delaware limited liability companies. The Complaint’s only reference

to the ongoing Florida litigation described above was confined to a single-sentence

footnote. 26    Jonathan’s subsequently filed Motion for Summary Judgment on

November 16, 2023, provided few additional details.27

       In response, Janice filed an unopposed motion to intervene, as well as her

Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay (the “Motion”).28 The parties submitted

competing schedules on whether to first resolve the Motion for Summary Judgment

or this Motion. The Court held a status conference on December 19, 2023, granted

the Motion to Intervene, and determined this Motion would be considered first due

to the potential forum-related issues presented at first blush.29 With full briefing

submitted, this matter is ripe for decision.

                                     II.    DISCUSSION

       Under McWane’s three-factor test, the Court may dismiss or stay in favor of

a previously filed action if there is a prior action pending elsewhere, in a court

capable of doing prompt and complete justice, and involving the same parties and

26
    Compl. ¶ 4, n.1. (“There is pending probate litigation in Florida between Jon and the Trust, but
it does not involve the declarations requested here. Jon will promptly provide the Trust a copy of
this complaint.”).
27
    Plaintiff Jonathan Logan’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 2).
28
    D.I. 9; D.I. 10.
29
    D.I. 13.
                                                 6
the same issues.30 “[I]t is preferable to merely stay the later-filed action because it

is impossible to predict with certainty the course of earlier-filed litigation in another

jurisdiction.”31 The authority to grant a stay is “incident to the inherent power of a

court to exercise its discretion to control the disposition of actions on its docket in

order to promote economies of time and effort for the court, litigants, and counsel.”32

       A.     The Delaware Action is Stayed under McWane

       Jonathan filed his complaint in the Florida Action in February 2023 and Janice

filed her amended complaint in August 2023. This action commenced in October

2023. Thus, the Florida Action is the prior-filed action.

       The Florida Court has already proven its ability to provide prompt and

complete justice. It has held several evidentiary hearings, entered injunctive relief,

and heard predicate Florida-related governance issues that implicate Loco and

Yacht, which prior to their conversions, were Florida entities. It has also considered

and added, to a status quo order, the Delaware entity (SCH LLC), which was formed

during the Florida litigation.

       The Florida Action involves functionally the same parties and issues

30
   LG Electronics, Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns, Inc., 114 A.3d 1246, 1252 (Del. 2015) (citing
McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell–Wellman Eng’g Co., 263 A.2d 281, 283 (Del. 1970).
31
   Schnell v. Porta Sys. Corp., 1994 WL 148276, at *6 (Del. Ch. Apr. 12, 1994); EnVen Energy
Corp. v. Dunwoody, 2020 WL 2770609, at *5 (Del. Ch. May 28, 2020).
32
   Joseph v. Shell Oil Co., 498 A.2d 1117, 1123 (Del. Ch. 1985).
                                              7
presented before this Court. “Consistent with the McWane doctrine generally, the

‘same parties, same issues’ analysis focuses on substance over form.”33 The Court

looks for “substantial or functional identity” between the competing action. 34

Whether two cases raise the same issues is based on whether the claims “are closely

related and arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts.”35

       Here, Loco is a party to both actions. And although Yacht is not a party to

the Florida Action, SCH, which is a party, allegedly purchased and maintains

Yacht’s assets. Thus, the 100’ Riva Cosaro, Yacht’s primary asset, may also be

subject to relief from the claims of fiduciary duty and waste brought in the Florida

Action.     Accordingly, substantial or functional identity exists between the

competing actions. Furthermore, the issues in both proceedings also arise from a

common nucleus of operative facts, that is, Jonathan and Janice’s rights in SCH and

their related entities, including Loco and Yacht, as well as Jonathan’s actions with

respect to those entities.

       Jonathan’s opposition is unpersuasive. He argues that the Delaware Action

only seeks narrow declarations regarding membership status in Loco and Yacht, and

33
   Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Sterigenics U.S., LLC, 2024 WL 324094, at *6 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 26,
2024) (citation omitted).
34
   Id.
35
   EnVen Energy Corp., 2020 WL 2770609, at *5 (citing EuroCapital Advisors, LLC v. Colburn,
2008 WL 401352, at *2 (Del. Ch. Feb. 14, 2008) (quoting Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Scandipharm,
Inc., 713 A.2d 925, 930 (Del. Ch. 1998))).
                                               8
on that basis, the propriety of their conversions into Delaware entities. But in the

Florida Action, Janice has brought derivative claims against Loco, and may only do

so if she is a member thereof. The analysis and interpretation of Florida law as to

Loco will similarly apply to Yacht. Thus, Janice’s claims in the Florida action

closely relate to the declarations sought in this action. Lastly, the resolution of the

claims regarding the actions taken by Jonathan at SCH may moot the requested

declarations as to Yacht.36

         For these reasons, the Delaware Action is stayed under McWane.

         B.   Inherent Discretion to Control Court Docket Weighs in Favor of a
         Stay

         Aside from this Court’s consideration of the McWane factors, Jonathan’s

litigation conduct raises a host of jurisdictional concerns.       Although Jonathan

argues that he merely seeks declarations regarding questions of Delaware internal

affairs, any jurisdictional analysis requires consideration of the actions he took after

the Florida Action was well underway. Further, Jonathan’s contention that his

Complaint presents narrow issues of Delaware governance is further belied by the

fact that he asks this Court to interpret Florida law. Yet, the only basis that allows

him to seek relief here is dependent upon the purported conversion of Florida

36
     See Reply at 5.
                                           9
entities, the validity of which may be void ab initio if Janice—who has already

shown a substantial likelihood of success—prevails on her claims in the Florida

Action.

       Given the alarming nature of the allegations in the Florida Action against

Jonathan, the Court is loath to insert itself in a dispute that has involved significant

motions practice, evidentiary hearings, and injunctive relief.37 The parties’ more

than year-long dispute in the Florida Court also implicates claims of fiduciary duty

and director liability—issues beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court.

Namely, one claim in the Florida is a derivative claim on behalf of Loco, and others

are direct and derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims against Jonathan regarding

Yacht’s assets.38 Seeking declaratory relief at this stage is, therefore, premature and

presents the risk of inconsistent rulings between the two actions.39 Principles of

comity and judicial efficiency weigh in favor of a stay pending the Florida Action.40

37
   In seeking summary judgment, this Court would have appreciated more transparency from
Plaintiff’s filings regarding the course of proceedings in the Florida Action.
38
   Motion at II.
39
   McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Eng’g Co., 263 A.2d 281, 283 (Del. 1970)
(The Court should avoid “the wasteful duplication of time, effort, and expense that occurs when
judges, lawyers, parties, and witnesses are simultaneously engaged in the adjudication of the same
cause of action in two courts,” as well as “the possibility of inconsistent and conflicting rulings
and judgments and an unseemly race by each party to trial and judgment in the forum of its
choice.”).
40
   Park G.P., Inc. v. CCSB Fin. Corp., 2020 WL 7706962, at *2 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29, 2020) (Citation
omitted).

                                               10
                             III.   CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, whether under McWane or this Court’s inherent

discretion to control its docket, Intervenor’s Motion to Stay is GRANTED, and this

action is STAYED in favor of the Florida Action.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                   Sincerely,
                                                   /s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                   Vivian L. Medinilla
                                                   Judge

                                       11