Donini v. Peaks
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-09706
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Donini v. Peaks, Judge Abrams ordered clarification of which claims and defenses the parties will pursue at trial.
Chelsea Donini and Phillip Peaks, regarding which claims and defenses they will pursue at trial.
What happened
In Donini v. Peaks, the parties’ proposed jury instructions and verdict form indicated that Chelsea Donini would pursue defamation, breach of contract, and repudiation of contract, while Phillip Peaks would pursue a breach-of-contract claim. Their earlier joint pretrial filing listed additional claims and defenses.
The court ordered the parties to tell it by April 30, 2025, whether they intend to pursue any additional claims or defenses. If so, they must submit revised jury instructions and a verdict form; if not, they must submit an agreement dismissing those claims under Rule 41.
Judge Ronnie Abrams stated that if the parties did not respond by the deadline, the court would presume they had abandoned the additional claims or defenses. The order did not decide the merits of any claim.
The detailed version
- Donini v. Peaks · No. 1:22-cv-09706
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
The parties submitted joint proposed jury instructions and a proposed verdict form on April 21, 2025. Those documents indicated that Plaintiff Chelsea Donini intended to pursue claims for defamation, breach of contract, and repudiation of contract at trial. They also indicated that Defendant Phillip Peaks, professionally known as “PEEZY,” intended to pursue a breach-of-contract claim. The earlier joint pretrial order stated that additional claims and defenses remained to be tried.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the parties to submit a letter by April 30, 2025, at 12:00 p.m., stating whether they intended to pursue claims or defenses beyond breach of contract, repudiation of contract, and defamation. If either party intended to pursue additional matters, the parties had to identify them and submit a revised proposed verdict form and revised jury instructions. If they did not intend to pursue additional claims at trial, they had to submit a stipulation—an agreed filing—dismissing those claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Effect of Nonresponse
The court stated that if the parties did not respond by the deadline, it would presume they did not intend to pursue the additional claims or defenses and would consider them abandoned. The order was a pretrial case-management ruling; it did not decide the merits of the claims or defenses and did not itself dismiss any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.