Belen v. Herman
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-06455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Belen v. Herman, Judge Hellerstein denied Julian M. Herman’s motion to strike allegations because it was untimely and meritless.
The ruling affects Julian M. Herman’s attempt to remove allegations from the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint; the challenged allegations remain in the pleading.
What happened
In Belen v. Herman, Julian M. Herman asked the court to remove allegations from the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The allegations concerned alleged fraud, efforts to obstruct enforcement of a judgment, and transfers of assets through limited liability companies.
The court said the motion was filed too late because the same allegations had appeared in earlier versions of the complaint, and Herman offered no good reason for the delay. The court also said the allegations provided relevant background and might be admissible as evidence.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied the motion to strike and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Belen v. Herman · No. 1:22-cv-06455
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
Ariel E. Belen, acting as temporary co-trustee and temporary trustee for the trusts identified in the complaint, and Rosemarie Herman, acting as co-trustee of one of those trusts, are plaintiffs. Defendant Julian M. Herman moved to strike, meaning remove, various paragraphs from the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.
The challenged allegations concerned claims that Julian M. Herman defrauded his sister, encumbered real-property assets to obstruct the plaintiffs’ efforts to enforce a judgment, and formed limited liability companies in South Dakota to transfer assets overseas because of the state’s regulatory climate.
Court’s Analysis
The court first ruled that the motion was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The challenged allegations had appeared in the initial complaint filed in state court on June 24, 2022, the first amended complaint filed on September 22, 2022, and the Second Amended Complaint filed on January 30, 2024. Julian M. Herman offered no good cause for waiting so long to seek their removal. The court therefore denied the motion on that ground.
The court also concluded that the motion failed on the merits. It held that the allegations were relevant because they supplied important context about the action’s history and background. The court further stated that it could not conclude that the allegations would be inadmissible at trial, noting that evidence of other acts can sometimes be admitted to show intent or motive and that background evidence may be admissible.
Disposition
Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied Julian M. Herman’s motion to strike. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 107.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.