X Wireless Files Motion to Dismiss Account Claim, Citing Parallel Proceeding

Defendant X Wireless filed a motion to dismiss (docket 1:23-cv-20848) a two-count collections action filed against it in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami by Nu-Era Telecom. X Wireless asked the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction, citing a an earlier-filed, parallel proceeding it filed against Nu-Era and Jordan Hantman, an X Wireless employee, in Maryland state court.

In the Maryland lawsuit, X Wireless alleged warehouse manager Hantman, while an X Wireless employee, engaged Nu-Era to deliver 200,000 electronic tablets from China. Nu-Era’s invoice for $1.5 million, the subject of two counts of the suit, “was excessive and nearly four times the market rate for such shipping charges,” X Wireless said. X Wireless agreed to pay the full amount to the Miami vendor for the devices but wouldn't pay Nu-Era’s “exorbitant and fraudulent shipping charges, which Nu-Era admitted contained what amounts to an illicit kickback paid to Hantman,” the motion said.

After Hantman quit his job with X Wireless, the company was advised that the $1.5 million invoice at issue included an $880,000 “broker fee” to be paid to Hantman, said the motion to dismiss. X Wireless sued Hantman, a Maryland resident, in January in Maryland Circuit Court on seven counts, including breach of employee duties of loyalty and intentional misrepresentation and fraud. It also sued Nu-Era and Hantman for conspiracy to commit fraud and Nu-Era for aiding and abetting.

After filing suit against Nu-Era and Hantman, X Wireless effected service of process on Nu-Era; Hantman has been evading service of process, X Wireless said. The court entered a scheduling order, including a pretrial conference Oct. 26, with the trial scheduled for between Nov. 27 and March 24, 2024.

About two weeks after X Wireless filed its complaint against Nu-Era, Nu-Era filed an instant action against X Wireless in Florida state court, said the motion to dismiss. Noting “complete diversity” between the parties in the Florida case, X Wireless exercised its right to remove the action to the U.S. District Court in Southern Florida.

A complete adjudication of all issues between X Wireless and Nu-Era requires the presence of Hantman, “whose actions are inextricably linked to the validity of the subject transaction,” said the motion. The instant action is a compulsory counterclaim to the Maryland state court case, the motion said. The Florida district court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss that action so the dispute between all parties can take place in the earlier-filed Maryland case, it said.

The action in Maryland requires Hantman’s presence, the motion said, and his and Nu-Era’s actions will determine “whether and to what extent any payment is required from X Wireless” regarding the subject transaction. Further, X Wireless said, “it is in the interest of wise judicial administration to dismiss this action” because the claims must be brought as compulsory counterclaims in the Maryland state court case, it said. Dismissal will avoid duplication and inconsistent rulings, it said. Nu-Era and Hantman couldn't be reached for comment.