Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fellenz v. Lombard Investment Corp.
Citations: 400 F. Supp. 2d 681; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25721; 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6706; 2005 WL 3104145Docket: 04-3992 (AET), 04-5768(AET), 04-3992, 04-6105(AET)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey; October 18, 2005; Federal District Court
Linda Lombardi and Lombard Investment Corporation filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of Count 15 of their Complaint against the United States, as per the Court's May 12, 2005 Order. The District Court, presided over by Judge Anne E. Thompson, addressed multiple motions, including those to dismiss the United States' complaint and cross-claims from Terry Falcone. After reviewing the written submissions without oral argument, the Court denied all motions. The Court clarified that motions for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i) are limited to issues that were presented but not considered previously. New evidence or arguments not raised in the initial proceedings are generally not admissible unless unusual circumstances exist. The movants, Lombardi and Lombard Investment Corp., merely expressed disagreement with the Court's earlier findings, which had already been considered and rejected. Therefore, their request for reconsideration was denied, as they failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked significant factual matters or legal precedents. Motions to dismiss filed by Linda Lombardi, Lombard Investment Corporation, and Carhart Lombardi, as well as by New Deal Plumbing and Heating Supply Company, Inc. and Michael Lombardi concerning Terry Falcone's cross-claims, are denied. The Court emphasizes that it will not consider arguments presented for the first time in reply briefs, adhering to local rules that prohibit sur-reply briefs. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement entitling them to relief, which need not detail legal theories or match every element of a claim. Dismissal is only appropriate if it is evident that no relief could be granted under any facts consistent with the complaint's allegations. The Court finds that the complaints meet these requirements, noting several key points: 1) the statute of limitations might not have expired on the claims; 2) the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Falcone's claims; 3) the government has sufficiently alleged personal liability for Linda Lombardi based on fraudulent conveyance and conversion; 4) a judgment lien does not prevent the enforcement of tax liens; 5) prior litigation did not resolve the issue of fraudulent conveyance regarding Kenneth Lombardi’s transfer; 6) the probate exception does not apply to these claims; 7) tax liens remain on property fraudulently conveyed even after the taxpayer’s death; and 8) procedural safeguards in 26 U.S.C. 6330 are not applicable in civil suits enforcing tax liens against fraudulently conveyed properties. Consequently, all motions to dismiss are denied.