Giacomantonio v. Romagnoli

The appellant could not assert that he was entitled to injunctive relief, which would maker parts of the parties' restaurant operation and supply companies' operating agreements invalid, since he did not appeal the trial court's ruling that the agreements were valid and enforceable.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case involves a “corporate divorce” between appellants Mirko Di Giacomantonio and Rosa, Inc. and appellees Sandro Romagnoli, The Emilio Civeli Group, Inc., Irven Penn, L. J. Hooker Corporation Worldwide, Inc., and IB Penn, Ltd. Giacomantonio and Rosa appeal from two different orders entered by the trial court. The first order granted summary judgment in favor of appellees on Giacomantonio and Rosa’s tort claims against them, based on the trial court’s finding that the involuntary withdrawal provisions contained in the contracts at issue were enforceable against Giacomantonio and Rosa. The second order entered final judgment in favor of Giacomantonio and Rosa in the amount of $370,129.90, and provided that such sum was payable to them over a period of ten years. On appeal, Giacomantonio and Rosa claim that the trial court erred: 1 in denying their motion for a temporary injunction granting Giacomantonio 50 percent of the voting rights in the companies he co-owned with Romagnoli and Penn or alternatively, to appoint a receiver to manage those companies and conduct an accounting; 2 in holding that because the involuntary withdrawal provisions were enforceable against Giacomantonio, he was precluded from asserting tort claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; and 3 in failing to award Giacomantonio and Rosa a one-time lump sum payment, rather than allowing that sum to be paid out over a ten-year period. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The grant or denial of a motion seeking either a temporary injunction or the appointment of a receiver will not be interfered with by this Court in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. Cherokee County v. City of Holly Springs 1 injunctive relief; Fulp v. Holt 2 appointment of a receiver. We apply a de novo standard of review “to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Donchi, Inc. v. Robdol, LLC .3

Giacomantonio v. Romagnoli

The appellant could not assert that he was entitled to injunctive relief, which would maker parts of the parties' restaurant operation and supply companies' operating agreements invalid, since he did not appeal the trial court's ruling that the agreements were valid and enforceable.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report