EAST ST. LOUIS – Belleville Crossing shareholders dismissed a suit claiming Arizona developer Jonathan Larmore neglected the property and spent their money on himself, his wife and his mother.
The shareholders posted notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice to filing the suit again, on Oct. 2.
A Louisiana judge placed Belleville Crossing and five other properties in the hands of a receiver on May 24 after Larmore’s lender, First Guaranty Bank, demanded $35 million.
Shareholders Diana Hamilton of Indiana, John Carderelli of Massachusetts, and the Brad and Monica Mason real estate company in Texas then sued Larmore on May 27.
They also sued his Arciterra company, its Belleville Crossing entity, his wife Michelle Larmore, his mother Marsha Larmore, and Arciterra employees.
Shareholder counsel Mark Maddox of Indiana claimed more than 2,000 investors received no dividends since 2019, and some received nothing since 2011.
He claimed many investors from an initial offering in 2006 are elderly or deceased.
Maddox alleged defendants schemed to wait them out until they succumb.
The court clerk assigned District Judge David Dugan.
Larmore’s counsel Michael Kelly of Chicago answered the complaint in August by moving to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
He claimed defendants aren’t Illinois citizens, didn’t have principal places of business here, and didn’t own real estate here.
“They have committed no torts here and have not conducted any continuous, systematic business here,” he wrote.
Kelly claimed Dugan couldn’t exercise general or specific jurisdiction because defendants didn’t purposely avail themselves of the privilege of conducting business in Illinois.
He claimed plaintiffs impermissibly grouped defendants together such that it was impossible to tell which allegations were leveled at each defendant.
He added that it wasn’t clear which defendants allegedly owed fiduciary duty.
He also claimed plaintiffs alleged diversion of money into other assets but then implied that it was diverted to assets owned exclusively by the Larmore family.
Kelly claimed it wasn’t clear whether all defendants owned property that allegedly received diverted funds or just the Larmores.
“Moreover, do plaintiffs mean Jonathan Larmore, Michelle Larmore, and Marcia Larmore all own the property, or some other combination?” he wrote.
On Sept. 19, as a deadline approached for plaintiffs to respond, the parties notified Dugan that they agreed to extend the deadline to Oct. 2.
On that date plaintiffs called a halt.
The receiver’s action continues in Louisiana.