Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ponder v. Wild

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 18, 2018

MICHAEL H. PONDER, Plaintiff(s),
v.
DR. HANS-PETER WILD, Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael Ponder's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 28). Defendant Hans-Peter Wild filed a response (ECF No. 29), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 32).

         Also before the court is plaintiff's motion to reopen the case. (ECF No. 26). Defendant filed a response (ECF No. 29), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 32).

         I. Background

         This action arises out of an alleged oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant, a resident of Switzerland, has or had an ownership or managerial interest in various corporations, including Wild Flavors, Inc. (“WFI”), Wild Affiliated Holdings, Inc. (“WAH”), and WILD Flavors GmbH (the “company”). (ECF No. 1 at 2).

         In June 1998, plaintiff, a Nevada resident, joined WFI as the president and CEO, and reported directly to defendant. Id. In August 2005, WFI became a subsidiary of WAH, and plaintiff became president and CEO of WAH. Id. In 2010, plaintiff became CEO of the company, which is headquartered in Switzerland. Id.

         Allegedly, during a dinner at defendant's house in Zug, Switzerland, defendant told plaintiff that plaintiff “needs to lead the effort to complete the sale of the [c]ompany, which included WFI and WAH.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff maintains that in return for his participation in the sale of the company, defendant promised “an additional $3 million over and above whatever compensation the management team received from the sale.” Id.

         Plaintiff claims that he led all of the management meetings, presentations, discussions with potential buyers, and was available for travel during the sale process. Id. at 4. Based on plaintiff's alleged performance, he had grown WFI “to more than $300 million in revenue and had an operating profit of more than 30%.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff argues that at the time of the sale of the company in 2014, WFI was the company's “crown jewel, ” allowing him to demand the significant premium for the business that defendant required. Id.

         In October 2014, after the sale of the company, plaintiff allegedly asked defendant who he should send the wiring instructions to for his $3 million payment. Id. Plaintiff maintains that defendant responded by claiming that the management payment after the sale was enough and that defendant was not going to pay plaintiff the allegedly agreed-upon $3 million sum. Id.

         Plaintiff claims that in April 2016, defendant stated he would pay plaintiff $25, 000 to handle a matter with the German government. Id. at 7. Defendant allegedly only paid plaintiff $10, 000 because, as defendant stated, $10, 000 was “enough.” Id.

         Plaintiff also claims to have provided bodyguard services to defendant for which he was never paid-estimated at $100, 000 per year. Id. at 8. Plaintiff maintains that when he began requesting payment for his various services, defendant began “engaging in defamation of [plaintiff]'s character and work ethic.”[1] Id.

         This alleged defamation consisted of sending correspondence to “third-parties, including, but not limited to, [plaintiff]'s former employer” that consisted of false statements in an effort to “discredit” and “tarnish” plaintiff's reputation. Id.

         Plaintiff also claims to have been removed as “director of a company” because he refused to join defendant's plan to cover up an attack of a female colleague. Id. at 9. Defendant allegedly never compensated plaintiff for his services as director of this company, estimated at $250, 000 per year. Id.

         On October 1, 2016, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint alleging (1) breach of oral contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation, (5) conversion, (6) defamation, and (7) punitive damages. (ECF No. 1).

         On April 26, 2017, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 24). Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant motions. Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, attached to his motion for leave to amend, contains three causes of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.