Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 28, 2025

Delaware Trust Company v. 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:25-cv-05379
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

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.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Delaware Trust Company v. 2084 Grand Ave Holdings LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05379
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.