This case was last updated from PACER on 10/08/2021 at 15:26:55 (UTC).

Padula v. Ebay et al

Case Summary

On September 28, 2021, George Padula (“Plaintiff”), represented by Elio Forcina of Elio Forcina Attorney at Law, filed a contract lawsuit against EBay and Maxamory (“Defendants”), seeking damages along with reasonable costs and disbursement, among other reliefs, for Defendant’s alleged breach of contract by selling prop guns that could be converted into functioning weapons. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York with Judge Margo K. Brodie and Judge Sanket J. Bulsara presiding.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Plaintiff purchased a Zoraki M2918 Black Semi Front Vent Blank 9mm PA- Safe Movie prop gun on January 11, 2016 from eBay’s website, the distributor of the prop gun being Maxarmory” and “The guidelines for the purchase were that the item can’t be converted to shoot lethal projectiles. Further, that any airsoft guns, replica guns, or other imitation firearms that can be converted to shoot lethal projectile cannot be listed. This includes replica guns that were made by converting real guns, even if the replica cannot be converted back to a working gun.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “The prop gun Plaintiff was sold was not within the eBay guidelines as guaranteed and as a result Plaintiff was arrested for use, carry, and possession of a firearm on or about December 5, 2016” and “Michael Beck used the gun in a crime. George Padula conceded that he purchased the movie prop gun on eBay in which eBay stated that the prop gun could not be converted to a working gun. Because of the depraved act of Michael Beck, George Padula was indicted for illegal possession of a firearm. On June 28, 2021, Mr. Padula was sentenced by the Honorable Raymond J. Dearie to 66 months in prison.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Contrary to eBay’s warranty that the prop gun could not be converted to a working gun, ballistics experts for the Government tested the starter pistol and determined that it could be converted to fire”. Plaintiff then alleged that, “Defendants intentionally breached this agreement. When Plaintiff purchased the gun, he was under contract that the prop gun could not be used as a firearm. Thus, the result of Defendants breach, in providing a real firearm, was that Plaintiff was indicted for illegal use of a firearm.”

 

There are six claims of relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged is for breach of contract. The second claim allege is for fraud. The third claim alleged is for Violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of the New York GBL §349 brought on behalf of Plaintiff. The fourth claim alleged is for False Advertising, pursuant to the New York GBL §350 brought on behalf of Plaintiff. The fifth claim alleged is for violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of the Various States and District of Columbia brought on behalf of the Plaintiff. The sixth claim alleged is for unjust enrichment.

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for an award of an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than the sum of $100,000,000, plus interest and reasonable costs and disbursements incurred in this action along with reasonable attorney’s fees and any other relief the Court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-05391

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Margo K. Brodie

Referral Judge

Sanket J. Bulsara

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

George Padula

Defendants

Ebay

Maxarmory

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Elio Forcina

Attorney at Elio Forcina Attorney at Law

250 Mineola Blvd

Mineola, NY 11501

 

Court Documents

#5

(#5) Letter in Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause by George Padula (Forcina, Elio) (Entered: 10/07/2021)

#4

(#4) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

#3

(#3) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

#2

(#2) Civil Cover Sheet.. Re Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet, #1 Complaint, by George Padula (Forcina, Elio) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

1 #3

Exhibit Exhibits A-C

1 #2

Proposed Summons Request for Summons

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) Letter in Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause by George Padula (Forcina, Elio) (Entered: 10/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Complaint #1 does not allege facts sufficient to infer that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. None of the claims asserted arise under the Constitution or federal law. As such, this Court thus only has subject matter jurisdiction over this case if there is diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). "The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that the grounds for diversity exist and that diversity is complete." Advani Enters., Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1998). "That party must allege a proper basis for jurisdiction in his pleadings and must support those allegations with competent proof if a party opposing jurisdiction properly challenges those allegations or if the court sua sponte raises the question." Linardos v. Fortuna, 157 F.3d 945, 947 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, the information provided in the Complaint is insufficient to show that there is complete diversity of citizenship. The Complaint merely alleges the addresses of the two corporate defendants. (Compl. 2-3). That is not sufficient. A corporation's citizenship "is determined by its place of incorporation or its principal place of business[.]" United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919 v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 1994). Neither has been pled here. To the extent Plaintiff intends to asset diversity jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), the broad and conclusory allegations in Count V that Plaintiff is bringing a claim on behalf of a classone that is undefined or limited in any manner and whose members' citizenship is unknownis not sufficient to confer diversity jurisdiction. See generally Dancel v. Groupon, Inc., 940 F.3d 381, 385 (7th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by 10/8/2021 in a letter not exceeding three (3) pages explaining why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff intends to amend the Complaint to add allegations sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff's letter must identify those facts. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara on 10/1/2021. (Bruckner, Ian) (Entered: 10/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara for all further proceedings. Chief Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak no longer assigned to case Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Ordered by Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie on 9/30/2021. (Bowens, Priscilla) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2021
  • DocketYour proposed summons was not issued for the following reason: The date field on the proposed summons was completed. Leave the date field on the PDF blank. Please correct and resubmit using Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Civil Cover Sheet.. Re Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet, #1 Complaint, by George Padula (Forcina, Elio) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketNotice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet. The Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed Civil Cover Sheet (MISSING SECOND PAGE). All questions *** INCLUDING the CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY*** section on the second page must be answered. Please resubmit Civil Cover Sheet. This event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketCase Assigned to Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie and Chief Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Neptune, Pierre) (Entered: 09/30/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Ebay, Maxarmory filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-14881591 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by George Padula. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons Request for Summons, #3 Exhibit Exhibits A-C) (Forcina, Elio) (Entered: 09/28/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EBAY INC. is a litigant