SCIENTOLOGY, WOGS + HOMO NOVIS: New York Appeals Court Grants Patrick Dibre’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against GPB Capital Holdings, owned by Scientologist David Gentile
Scientologist David Gentile, owner of GPB Capital Holdings, was dealt a legal loss yesterday when the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division granted Patrick Dibre his motion for summary judgment in GPB Capital Holdings v. Dibre. The case at hand concerned the sale of car dealerships owned by Dibre to GPB Capital Holdings. Certain of these dealership sales were never completed, this although GPB Capital paid Dibre ~$42 million.
A key contractual factor in selling a car dealership is that the automotive manufacturer must approve the sale. For example, if Party A wants to sell her three Nissan dealerships to Party B, then Nissan must approve the sale as its name, cars, repair services, and OEM replacement parts are involved. If Nissan performed due diligence on Party B and found it to be incapable of successfully running dealerships or to have other issues that could create legal liabilities for Nissan, then it would exercise its rights and decline to approve the sale.
This is what happened in the GPB Capital Holdings v. Dibre lawsuit. While a few auto manufacturers granted their approval for Dibre to sell his dealerships to GPB Capital, a few other manufacturers did not. Holdings. In lieu of selling the excluded dealerships, then, GPB Capital paid Dibre money in exchange for taking a percentage of the dealership profits. A new agreement was entered into between the parties. This new “Master Agreement” irrevocably released Dibre from all terms in the original agreement.
With the new agreement in place, GPB Capital Holdings alleged that Dibre had breached certain terms of the old agreement. Indeed, GPB Capital Holdings was rather nasty and aggressive in its lawsuit and alleged Dibre had been a complete scoundrel. However, these charges were meritless and beside the point. The court ruled that the prior release stood. Dibre was irrevocably released from all of the terms and conditions of the old agreement. This is what happens in logical real-world courts as opposed to Scientology’s nonsensical kangaroo court known as “binding religious arbitration.”
Scientologist Gentile’s mistake was in not requiring Mr. Dibre agree to Scientology binding religious arbitration in the event of a dispute. We joke here to make a point: David Gentile inhabits two vastly different worlds which he seems to conflate. The real world is not the Church of Scientology. Mr. Gentile seems to think his Scientological powers, whatever they are altogether, will result in his conquest of the real world. This is a fallacy all too common to the Scientology Master Race mindset.
As David Gentile has learned, “wog law” is the law of the land and contains no Scientology nonsense. A “wog” is Scientology’s pejorative and hate-filled term of contempt for all non-Scientologists. The “wog world” and “wog law” are looked down upon as degraded, filthy, and insane constructs designed only to impede the forward progress of what L. Ron Hubbard called “Homo Novis.” Hubbard saw Scientologists as Homo Novis, the superior race of the “New Man.” Hubbard:
“HOMO NOVIS, 1. Homo man, novis, new. (BCR, p. 12) 2. a theta-animated mest body possessed of new and desirable attributes; a mest clear, a good, sane rational mest being about a skyscraper higher than Homo sapiens. (HOM, p. 40) 3. the Second Stage Release is definitely Homo novis. The person ceases to respond like Homo sapiens and has fantastic capability to learn and act. (HCOB 28 Jun 65)” — L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary
Hubbard called all non-Scientologists “wogs” and dehumanized them by writing that wogs weren’t even trying, i.e. that were worthless and lazy:
3. Any non-Scientologist is a “wog,” someone who “isn’t even trying.”
(Ref: L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary.)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Volkswagen of America have filed lawsuits against Dave Gentile and GPB Capital Holdings. There are many other lawsuits as well. As we have been saying, we predict a RICO action against Dave Gentile and GPB Capital Holdings is quickly approaching. In Scientology jargon, David Gentile is PTS as hell and is pulling all of this in.
Over to you Dave.
Do you care to have Nancy Sterling issue a comment?
The Decision & Order of August 12, 2020:
Decided on August 12, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
(Index No. 606417/17)
GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al., appellants,
Patrick Dibre, respondent.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY (James D. Herschlein and Robert T. Franciscovich of counsel), for appellants.
Cyruli Shanks Hart & Zizmor LLP, New York, NY (Jeffrey C. Ruderman and Steven J. Harfenist of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duties, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Vito M. DeStefano, J.), entered November 13, 2018. The order granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action in the amended complaint that do not arise out of a certain November 14, 2016, Master Agreement.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
This action stems from certain written agreements entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant whereby, in addition to agreeing to various other obligations, the defendant agreed to sell various automotive dealerships to the plaintiffs. After there were certain issues with closing the sale of the dealerships, and discord arose between the parties, the parties entered into a new written agreement on November 14, 2016, referred to as the “Master Agreement,” through which the parties sought to disengage from all of their prior dealings, disputes, and claims and move forward under a new structure and terms governing the sale of the dealerships to the plaintiffs. Paragraph 1 of the Master Agreement terminated the parties’ prior written agreements, referred to as the “December 2015 Agreement” and the “2015 Purchase Agreement.” In paragraph 10 of the Master Agreement, entitled “Mutual Releases,” the parties agreed to “forever and irrevocably release, discharge and acquit each other from any obligations to each other, including but not limited to, under the 2015 Purchase Agreements, the December 9, 2015 Agreement, and any other agreements by and between the Parties, except as may be specifically referenced herein.” In paragraph 4 of the Master Agreement, the parties agreed to preserve the defendant’s payment obligations from one of the now-terminated prior written agreements. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for, among other things, breach of contract, asserting various claims relating to the transactions preceding the Master Agreement, as well as claims for breach of the Master Agreement. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action in the amended complaint that do not arise out of the Master Agreement, contending that they are barred by the Master Agreement’s mutual release provisions. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiffs appeal.
“[A] valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release” (Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 NY3d 269, 276 [internal quotation marks omitted]), including any cause of action arising prior to the date of its execution and delivery, in the absence of fraud or other vitiating circumstances in its inducement or execution (see Matter of O’Hara, 85 AD2d 669). “[T]he interpretation of a written release is within the province of the court and, if the language of the release is free from ambiguity, its meaning may be determined as a matter of law on the basis of the writing alone without resort to extrinsic evidence” (Matter of Transtate Ins. Co., 297 AD2d 684, 685; see Kulkarni v Arredondo & Co., LLC, 151 AD3d 705, 706; Sicuranza v Philip Howard Apts. Tenants Corp., 121 AD3d 966, 967; Inter-Reco, Inc. v Lake Park 175 Froehlich Farm, LLC, 106 AD3d 955, 955).
Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that based upon paragraphs 1, 4, and 10 of the Master Agreement, the Master Agreement clearly and unambiguously released him from all claims and liabilities under the parties’ prior agreements. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ contention that the release of all obligations in the Master Agreement does not include the release of all liabilities and claims predating it under the prior written agreements, would, in view of paragraph 4, run afoul of basic tenets of contract interpretation that “a court should seek an interpretation which does not render any term or phrase of a contract meaningless or superfluous” (Landmark Ventures, Inc. v H5 Tech., Inc., 152 AD3d 657, 659).
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action in the amended complaint that do not arise out of the Master Agreement.
MASTRO, J.P., CONNOLLY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
Clerk of the Court
Comments are closed.