Delaware Trust Company v. 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:25-cv-05379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Delaware Trust Company v. 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC, Judge Caproni denied Defendants’ application without prejudice, requiring a noticed motion to vacate the receiver order.
The ruling affected defendants 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC, 2155 Grand Ave Holdings LLC, and Dovid Kleiner. Their application was denied without prejudice, and the court directed them to use a noticed motion to seek vacatur of the receiver order.
What happened
In Delaware Trust Company v. 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC, the defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction and a July 7, 2025 order appointing a receiver. They argued that the plaintiff had not properly established diversity or personal jurisdiction and had not properly served the defendants.
The defendants asked the court to order jurisdictional discovery, dismiss the case if jurisdiction could not be established, and vacate, stay, or modify the receiver order. They also argued that the receiver order had been entered without their participation and raised concerns about its bond and other requirements.
Judge Caproni denied the application without prejudice. The court’s order states that the defendants must file a noticed motion if they want to seek vacatur of the receiver order.
The detailed version
- Delaware Trust Company v. 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05379
- Valerie Caproni
- July 28, 2025
Background
Delaware Trust Company brought this action against 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC, 2155 Grand Ave Holdings LLC, and Dovid Kleiner. The court had previously entered an order appointing a receiver on July 7, 2025. The opinion text consists primarily of defense counsel’s letter application and ends with the court’s brief order.
Defendants’ Application
The defendants asked the court to order discovery concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, or alternatively dismiss the action if the plaintiff could not establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. They also argued that the plaintiff had not properly served the order to show cause or the summons. Their filing asserted that the service affidavits were deficient, that no valid summons had been issued, and that the court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
Based on those arguments, the defendants asked the court to vacate the receiver order and dismiss the action. Alternatively, they asked the court to stay or modify the receiver order and allow them to oppose the receiver’s appointment. They also challenged aspects of the receiver order, including the proposed $5,000 bond and provisions concerning property-related accounts, loan-sale proceeds, and an accounting.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that the application was DENIED without prejudice. The order further states: “If Defendants want to move to vacate the receiver order, they must make [a] noticed motion for that relief.” The text does not provide a substantive ruling on the defendants’ jurisdiction, service, or receiver-order arguments, and it does not state that the receiver order was vacated, stayed, or modified.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed an application concerning jurisdictional discovery, dismissal, service, and ancillary receiver relief without deciding the underlying dispute on the merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.