Nosaj Entertainment v. Tristate and Beyond, LLC

Background

Nosaj Entertainment, HP Entertainment, Pinoy Dream Productions, LLC, and Team Guidotts Production entered three booking agreements with Tristate and Beyond, LLC for a concert series called “Mad About Love.” The concerts were scheduled for January 14, 15, and 16, 2022, in Houston, Dallas, and Washington, D.C., and were to feature Morisette Anon and Sam Concepcion.

The agreements required Tristate to book the performers, arrange travel, and work on obtaining their visas. The plaintiffs were responsible for venues, accommodations, and transportation. The plaintiffs paid three initial deposits totaling $35,700. The agreements required postponement and application of the deposits to rescheduled concerts when cancellation resulted from specified events outside Tristate’s control, including visa problems or pandemic-related events. They required refunds and reimbursement of certain expenses when cancellation resulted from causes attributable to Tristate.

After Anon contracted COVID-19, the parties postponed the concerts. The parties later entered amended agreements, but visa-interview delays prevented the rescheduled concerts from proceeding. The plaintiffs demanded return of their deposits, and Tristate instead sought another postponement.

Summary-Judgment Standard and Contract Claim

Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Because the plaintiffs did not file the required numbered response to defendants’ factual statement, the court treated properly supported facts in defendants’ statement as admitted, while still reviewing whether the evidence supported those facts.

The plaintiffs argued that Tristate failed to complete the visa process, including filing the required DS-160 applications with the U.S. Embassy. The record suggested that Tristate submitted and obtained approval of the initial visa petitions, but defendants did not provide documentary evidence showing that they filed the DS-160 applications. Viewing the evidence in the plaintiffs’ favor, the court found a reasonable inference that this step may not have been completed. That created a factual dispute about whether Tristate performed its contractual obligations.

The court therefore denied summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim against Tristate, Count One.

Other Claims

The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the unjust-enrichment claims against Tristate and Aromin, Counts Two and Five. The court held that the written booking agreements covered the deposit-refund dispute, so the plaintiffs could not pursue an unjust-enrichment theory for the same subject matter.

The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the conversion claims against Tristate and Aromin, Counts Three and Six. The alleged conversion involved the same $35,700 deposits and the same contractual refund obligation as the breach-of-contract claim. The court found no separate duty outside the contracts that could support conversion.

The court granted summary judgment for Tristate, Lantin, and Aromin on the fraud and misrepresentation claim, Count Four. It held that the alleged promises to perform contractual obligations were duplicative of the contract claim and that the alleged misrepresentation about the RankOne agreement did not establish fraud. The claimed damages were also recoverable as contract damages, and the record did not support punitive damages.

The court granted summary judgment for Lantin on the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, Count Seven. It held that the friendship described by the plaintiffs did not create the trust and confidence required for a fiduciary relationship.

Disposition

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied in part and granted in part. The motion was denied as to Count One and granted in all other respects. The clerk was directed to terminate the summary-judgment motion.