Nosaj Entertainment v. Tristate and Beyond, LLC

Background

Nosaj Entertainment, HP Entertainment, Pinoy Dream Productions, LLC, and Team Guidott’s Production sued Tristate and Beyond, LLC, Romulo Aromin Jr., and Flordeliza Lantin. The plaintiffs alleged claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Booking Agreements required Tristate to arrange travel and work with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to obtain visas for two performers. The plaintiffs were responsible for securing concert venues.

The agreements required Tristate to refund the plaintiffs’ initial deposit if the performers did not appear, unless the failure resulted from a force-majeure event. In that circumstance, the concert series would be postponed and the deposit applied to the rescheduled event. After Tristate twice attempted to reschedule the concerts because the performers did not obtain visas, the plaintiffs sued to recover the deposit.

In its September 24, 2024 decision, the court granted summary judgment for the individual defendants on the plaintiffs’ claims against them. It denied summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim against Tristate because the record did not show whether Tristate had submitted the required DS-160 visa forms. Tristate then moved for reconsideration after obtaining documentary evidence concerning those forms. The plaintiffs filed an unauthorized sur-reply, which the court struck.

Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary request to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that it may be granted based on an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. For newly discovered evidence, the moving party must generally show that the evidence existed earlier, that the party was justifiably unaware of it despite due diligence, that it is admissible and important enough to likely change the result, and that it is not merely cumulative or impeachment evidence.

The court found that Tristate submitted new evidence, including Department of State confirmations that it had submitted DS-160 applications for the performers and receipts showing payment of visa-processing fees. The court recognized that Tristate had waited four months after the earlier ruling and had not adequately shown that it was justifiably unaware of the forms. Nevertheless, exercising its discretion in light of the new evidence and concerns about judicial efficiency and finality, the court found the evidence admissible and important enough that it likely would have changed the earlier result. The court therefore granted Tristate’s motion for reconsideration.

Summary Judgment on the Contract Claim

Summary judgment is appropriate 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. To prove breach of contract, the plaintiffs had to show an agreement, their own adequate performance, a breach by Tristate, and damages.

The plaintiffs argued that Tristate breached the Booking Agreements by failing to secure the performers’ appearances and by not refunding the initial deposits. Tristate argued that its obligation to refund was excused by the agreements’ force-majeure provisions, which covered COVID-related events.

The court held that the force-majeure provisions were unambiguous and specifically covered COVID-19. It found that the provisions applied to the United States Embassy’s closure and resulting visa-interview backlog caused by the COVID-19 Omicron variant. Tristate supported those events with declarations from one of its members and its immigration attorney, and the plaintiffs submitted no contrary evidence.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that Tristate had failed to pay the visa-processing fee, failed to use an interview-waiver program, or acted negligently because one performer later obtained a visa for a separate concert. The payment receipts contradicted the argument that Tristate had not paid the fee. The court also found that the interview-waiver program identified by the plaintiffs applied to different visa categories, while the performers sought O-1B and O-2 visas. A later notice expanding interview waivers for some O-visa applicants did not show that Tristate could have used the program when it was attempting to perform under the agreements.

The court found that Tristate had submitted the required I-129 petition and DS-160 applications and that its immigration attorney had asked the Embassy for expedited interviews. The court concluded that the record contained no evidence that Tristate acted negligently in applying for the visas. It therefore granted Tristate’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim.

Order

Judge Victor Marrero ordered that Tristate’s motion for reconsideration be GRANTED and that Tristate’s motion for summary judgment be GRANTED on reconsideration. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case.