Gangl v. Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC

Background

Jeffrey Gangl, represented by David E. Gottlieb, asked the court to order nonparty Colin Conner to comply with a document subpoena. The letter concerns Gangl’s claims against Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC and Philip Neuman, as well as a related action identified in the filing.

The underlying dispute involves Gangl’s employment. Fractional allegedly contends that Gangl was terminated for cause because of poor performance and failure to work full time. Gangl contends that Neuman decided to end the employment relationship after Gangl said that his workload was difficult given his role as the parent and caregiver of an ill child, and that Fractional later described the termination as for cause to avoid compensation allegedly owed under the employment agreement.

Request to Compel Subpoena Compliance

Gangl’s letter states that Conner was identified as a relevant witness by both sides and by Fractional in response to interrogatories. It also states that Fractional obtained a signed declaration from Conner before a private mediation. Gangl served Conner with a subpoena for documents concerning the allegations in the complaints, the relationship between Neuman’s personal businesses and Fractional, and communications concerning the witness declaration.

The subpoena requested documents and communications concerning the complaints, Gangl, Fractional, alleged funding of Fractional’s accounts by Luxe Health, Inc., and the witness declaration, including draft versions. Gangl’s lawyer stated that Conner did not respond by the required date and did not respond to a later letter requesting compliance. The letter cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 and argued that the requested information was relevant to the case.

Court’s Action

The provided text shows that Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC and Philip Neuman to file a response no later than April 25, 2025. It does not show that the court granted or denied Gangl’s request to compel Conner, and it does not state that Conner was ordered to produce documents.

Because the text reflects an action concerning discovery and a subpoena rather than a decision on the parties’ underlying employment claims, the ruling is procedural.