IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Car Charging Group, Inc., a
Nevada Corporation and 350
Holdings, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 13 C 3124
JNS Holding Corporation, a
Delaware Corporation, and
JNS Power & Control
Systems, Inc., an Illinois
Corporation,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [14] is denied.
STATEMENT
On the res judicata question, the parties’
disagreements over whether the dismissal in the New York
action was “final,” “with prejudice,” or “on the merits,”
and whether the parties to that case are in privity with the
parties in this case all miss a critical point. It is
apparent that at least some of the events underlying the
claims plaintiffs bring in this case—most notably, the
putative closing of the APA between 350 Green and JNS
Power—had yet to occur at the time plaintiffs brought, and
later settled, the New York action. That plaintiffs were
“aware” of the APA before settling the New York action, as
to the 350 Defendants, on April 22, 2013, does not compel
the conclusion that plaintiffs had a “full and fair
opportunity to pursue claims against JNS based on the APA.”
As I understand plaintiffs’ allegations, plaintiffs
believed, based on that settlement, that the APA, although
executed, would not close, pursuant to its terms, on April
29, 2013. Yet the operative complaint in this case asserts
that defendants “plan on moving forward with the purchase of
Case: 1:13-cv-03124 Document #: 40 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:367
the Chicago Assets pursuant to the terms of the APA,” which
I take to mean that the parties to the APA did, contrary to
plaintiffs’ expectations, and despite the April 22, 2013,
settlement, purport to close the transaction. That closing
is central to plaintiffs’ claims here, and it could not have
been litigated before the New York action was dismissed.
I am likewise unpersuaded by defendants’ standing
argument, particularly now that 350 Green—undisputedly a
party to the APA—has been added as a plaintiff. There seems
to be no dispute that 350 Green has standing to raise the
declaratory claim at issue here, so that claim may proceed.
Finally, I am satisfied that the totality of
plaintiffs’ allegations meets the liberal pleading
requirements of Rule 8 as to their claim for tortious
interference with contractual relations.
_____________________________
Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: August 5, 2013
Case: 1:13-cv-03124 Document #: 40 Filed: 08/05/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:368
AI
