The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Jamie Dingman’s bid to strike out a $1.113 million damages claim over his failed Nassau restaurant empire is moving forward despite “not necessarily being a winner”.

The son of world-famous entrepreneur and Lyford Cay resident, Michael, has been given permission by a New York judge to argue that the Bahamas is the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to hear the case against him.

Judge Naomi Buchwald, in a June 1 Order, is permitting Mr Dingman’s ‘motion to dismiss’ to proceed to a hearing, but with the caveat that it is restricted to the ‘most appropriate jurisdiction’ argument only.

“We have reviewed the parties’ letters of May 6 and May 19,” Judge Buchwald said in a May 23 legal filing. “Having done so, it seems to this court that the ‘forum non conveniens’ argument is the strongest one (though not necessarily a ‘winner’) advanced by the defendants.”

She directed that Mr Dingman’s ‘motion to dismiss’ the action, brought by several Bahamian corporate and individual creditors of his collapsed restaurant ventures, be restricted to that topic.

However, this does not “prejudice” the other dismissal arguments advanced previously by Mr Dingman and his US attorneys. The two sides must file legal papers, outlining their respective cases, over a series of dates in June and August 2016.

Mr Dingman’s US attorney, Jeffrey Mitchell, of the Browne, George, Ross law firm, argued in a May 6 letter to the New York southern district judge that the Bahamas was the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to bring the claim.

“Almost all of the parties, witnesses and evidence are in the Bahamas, the case concerns businesses in the Bahamas, and virtually every event complained of occurred in the Bahamas,” he alleged.

“Accordingly, the three factors to be considered in assessing a request to dismiss all weigh in favour of dismissal. Moreover, for those plaintiffs who are US citizens, their reliance on citizenship to avoid dismissal is diminished in view of their choice to invest in a foreign country, and their complaints about fraudulent acts occurring primarily in that country.

“Instead, these claims should be adjudicated in a Bahamian court, where defendants all are amenable to suit, and which is the appropriate avenue for plaintiffs to seek redress for their claims.”

Mr Mitchell also warned that Mr Dingman might seek to dismiss the lawsuit because it “lacked jurisdiction” over both himself and the five restaurant companies, all of whom are domiciled in the Bahamas.

The five companies are the failed Nassau restaurant ventures: The Traveller’s Beach Restaurant, 25 North Ltd, Island Smoke House Ltd, Out West Hospitality and Bahamex Ltd.

The Bahamian companies involved as plaintiffs against Mr Dingman are FYP and Tile King, the People First (Bahamas) employment agency, IDNet, and Young Digerati (YNG).

The individual Bahamians suing Mr Dingman include Jason Rolle, his former general manager, who claims to be owed $46,113 in unpaid salary and benefits, plus Tyrone Adderley, a contractor due more than $2,000 for work on the Beach Club Cafe at Sandyport.

In their May 19 response to Mr Dingman’s attorney, the plaintiffs argued that moving their claim to the Bahamian Supreme Court will be “unduly burdensome”.

Attorneys from US law firm Sher Tremonte alleged that Mr Dingman had provided no proof to back his assertion that the Bahamas was a proper alternative jurisdiction, and argued that this nation was an “inadequate” forum for the case.

They urged the New York court to “defer” to the plaintiffs’ choice of venue, given that some of them resided in the city.

“Defendants have not offered any proof that the Bahamas would be an adequate alternative forum,” Sher Tremonte alleged.

“In fact, decisions in this circuit have recognised that the Bahamas may not be an adequate alternative forum for cases involving ‘multiple defendants and the possibility of extensive discovery’ because the American contingent fee system is ‘not available in the Bahamas’.”

They continued: “ Finally, adjudicating this dispute in the Bahamas would be unduly burdensome to plaintiffs, most of whom do not reside in the Bahamas.

“By contrast, litigating plaintiffs’ claims in this court would not be burdensome at all to Dingman, who maintains an apartment in New York city and travels to New York often.”

The original lawsuit, filed early in the New Year, claimed that Mr Dingman has effectively abandoned his creditors and investors and “fled the Bahamas altogether”, refusing to pay what he owes.

Mr Dingman’s efforts to build a Nassau-based restaurant and hospitality business included taking over the iconic Traveller’s Restaurant in western New Providence via a lease arrangement.

That venture failed and the property shut again, until members of the Bain family, its owners, re-opened it again last summer.

He also leased two units in the Klonaris brothers’ Elizabeth on Bay plaza on Bay Street for two other restaurant formats, both of which have also closed.

Tribune Business also revealed how Mr Dingman leased the Beach Club Cafe from Sandyport’s developers, viewing this as his “signature property”. The venture never opened, and the lease was pulled.