Rothman v. Hasz Project Management and Design

Background

Loren Rothman brought claims against Hasz Project Management and Design, doing business as Hudson Trailer Company, and Suzanne Hasz. The dispute concerns Rothman’s purchase and renovation of a vintage Crown Supercoach school bus for use as a mobile bar and lounge for his business, Stargazer Social Club.

Rothman alleged that Hudson and Hasz represented that Hudson was a leader in luxury custom vehicle projects, used high-quality materials and workmanship, could meet his specialized design requirements, and would provide a project timeline after the details were finalized. Rothman alleged that these statements led him to sign a Services Agreement with Hudson on November 15, 2022.

After Rothman received the renovated bus, he alleged that he discovered numerous defects, including problems with the stereo, kegerator, carpentry, air-conditioning and heating systems, photo booth, tap system, and roof sealing. He alleged that he paid for repairs and expected to spend more than $60,000 correcting the problems. The opinion states that he paid Hudson $127,553 for the services.

Rothman asserted fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation claims against both defendants. He asserted breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims against Hudson, and claims against Hudson under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive practices and false advertising.

The Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement, negligent-misrepresentation, and New York General Business Law claims. They also argued that Hasz could not be personally liable for the alleged fraudulent conduct.

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim plausible. For purposes of this motion, the court accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Rothman’s favor.

Hasz’s Potential Personal Liability

The court rejected the argument that Hasz could not be personally liable simply because she acted as an officer of Hudson. Under New York law, a corporate officer may be personally liable for fraudulent acts or false representations in which the officer personally participates or of which the officer has actual knowledge.

The court found that Rothman alleged direct discussions with Hasz and alleged that Hasz personally made or participated in representations about Hudson’s capabilities, the quality of the renovation, and the project timeline. The court therefore concluded that Hasz could potentially be held personally liable for the alleged fraudulent conduct.

Fraudulent Inducement and Negligent Misrepresentation

The defendants argued that Rothman’s fraud claims merely repeated his breach-of-contract claim. The court disagreed. It explained that a fraud claim may proceed separately when it is based on a duty independent of the contract, a misrepresentation made before the contract was formed, a statement collateral to the contract, or special damages not recoverable as contract damages.

The court found that Rothman adequately alleged that the defendants made pre-contract statements about Hudson’s experience, ability to meet his design goals, quality of work, and promised timeline. The court viewed those alleged statements as collateral or separate from Hudson’s specific obligations under the Services Agreement, which included installing and completing particular features of the bus. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement and negligent-misrepresentation claims against both defendants.

New York General Business Law Claims

The court also denied the motion to dismiss Rothman’s claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. It ruled that these claims were governed by the ordinary pleading standard under Rule 8(a), rather than Rule 9(b)’s heightened requirement for pleading fraud with particularity.

The court concluded that Rothman adequately alleged the required elements: consumer-oriented conduct, materially misleading statements, and injury caused by those statements. The alleged advertising appeared on Hudson’s website and social-media account and described Hudson as a leader and expert in vintage-vehicle renovations. The court found that such statements could affect similarly situated potential customers and could plausibly mislead reasonable consumers.

The court also found that Rothman adequately alleged injury by claiming that he paid for services that did not provide their full value and incurred or expected to incur substantial repair costs.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. The defendants were directed to answer the complaint by July 15, 2025, and the parties were directed to confer and submit a case-management plan and scheduling order by August 5, 2025. The ruling allowed the challenged claims to proceed; it did not decide whether Rothman will ultimately prevail on them.