Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, Judge Cronan set oral-argument time and ordered supplemental briefing on expert evidence, declaratory counterclaims, and summary judgment.
Frank Brunckhorst III, Susan Stravitz Kemp, Richard Todd Stravitz, Eric Bischoff, and the other parties involved in the pending claims and counterclaims were affected by the briefing deadlines, page limits, and oral-argument schedule.
What happened
In Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff, the court responded to the parties’ joint request for guidance before oral argument scheduled for July 23, 2024. It planned 90 minutes of argument, divided equally between Eric Bischoff and Frank Brunckhorst III, Susan Stravitz Kemp, and Richard Todd Stravitz together.
The court also required supplemental briefing by July 18, 2024, on whether to disregard parts of an expert-related declaration as inconsistent with earlier deposition testimony; whether one of Bischoff’s declaratory counterclaims duplicated his breach-of-contract counterclaim; whether to decline jurisdiction over another declaratory counterclaim; and what procedural result would follow from declining jurisdiction over a request for a declaration. The court said it did not expect to focus on Bischoff’s motion to exclude expert opinions but would hear related argument.
Judge John P. Cronan did not decide those issues in this order. He set the argument schedule and directed the parties to submit the specified briefs, with each side receiving a combined ten-page limit.
The detailed version
- Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff · No. 1:21-cv-04362
- John Cronan
- July 10, 2024
What the Order Does
The court issued an order addressing the parties’ joint letter requesting guidance before oral argument scheduled for July 23, 2024. The order does not grant or deny the referenced motions or counterclaims. Instead, it sets the expected argument time and requires additional briefing.
Oral Argument
The court intends to reserve 90 minutes for oral argument. Frank Brunckhorst III, Susan Stravitz Kemp, and Richard Todd Stravitz will receive a combined 45 minutes, while Eric Bischoff will receive 45 minutes. The court does not anticipate focusing on Bischoff’s motion to exclude expert opinions, but it will allow argument on that motion if the parties address it.
Required Supplemental Briefing
The court directed the parties to brief four issues:
- Whether portions of Robert S. Martin’s declaration should be disregarded under the sham issue of fact doctrine because of discrepancies that Bischoff identifies between the declaration and Martin’s earlier deposition testimony.
- Assuming, only for purposes of argument, that Bischoff has the better interpretation of Barbara Brunckhorst’s status under paragraph 5(b) of the Shareholder’s Agreement and that no genuine dispute of material fact remains concerning the shares associated with Barbara, whether the court should decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction over Bischoff’s first counterclaim for a declaratory judgment because it duplicates his second counterclaim for breach of contract.
- Whether the court should decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction over Bischoff’s third counterclaim for a declaratory judgment under the factors identified by the Second Circuit in Admiral Insurance Co. v. Niagara Transformer Corp.
- If the court declines jurisdiction over any request by Bischoff or Brunckhorst for a declaratory judgment, whether that action would constitute summary judgment for the party opposing the declaration or would produce some other procedural result.
The parties were required to submit the supplemental briefs by July 18, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. Brunckhorst and the Trustees were allotted a combined ten pages, and Bischoff was allotted ten pages.
Disposition and Scope
The order sets procedures for the upcoming argument and briefing. It does not resolve the evidentiary issue, determine the parties’ rights under the Shareholder’s Agreement, decide whether any counterclaim is duplicative, rule on discretionary jurisdiction, or determine the effect of declining jurisdiction over a declaratory-judgment request. The court entered the order on July 9, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.