ABCMN v. Chopp
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-07081
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In ABCMN, LLC v. Chopp, Judge Broderick denied Defendant Chopp’s request to postpone the initial case-management conference pending a planned motion to dismiss.
Defendant Betzalel Chopp’s request to postpone the initial case-management conference was denied; ABCMN, LLC’s claims and Chopp’s anticipated motion to dismiss were not decided.
What happened
ABCMN, LLC v. Chopp concerns a defense request to postpone an initial case-management conference. ABCMN alleges that Mark Nussbaum or his law firm transferred money to Betzalel Chopp, who allegedly agreed to repay it with interest. The complaint asserts breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment claims.
Chopp asked to postpone the November 24, 2025 conference until after he responded to the complaint and filed an anticipated motion to dismiss. He argued that discovery and initial disclosures would be more efficient after the court addressed his arguments about jurisdiction, the alleged contract, criminally excessive interest, and duplicative claims. ABCMN did not consent to the request.
The court denied the application to postpone the conference. The ruling document is addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker; the supplied case information identifies Judge Vernon Broderick. The document does not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or the merits of ABCMN’s claims.
The detailed version
- ABCMN v. Chopp · No. 1:25-cv-07081
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
ABCMN, LLC filed a complaint alleging that Mark Nussbaum and/or Nussbaum Lowinger LLP transferred funds to Defendant Betzalel Chopp. The complaint alleges that Chopp agreed to repay the transferred amounts with interest but did not do so. It asserts three state-law claims: breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment.
The court had scheduled an initial case-management conference for November 24, 2025. The parties were required to meet and confer about discovery-related matters and exchange initial disclosures before that conference. Under a joint stipulation, Chopp’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was November 17, 2025.
The Request
Chopp’s counsel asked the court to adjourn, or postpone, the initial case-management conference until after Chopp responded to the complaint and filed an anticipated motion to dismiss. Counsel argued that the case was at an early stage, no discovery had occurred, and a motion to dismiss could narrow the issues and reduce unnecessary discovery and expense.
Counsel also argued that the complaint appeared legally defective for four reasons: lack of personal jurisdiction over Chopp; failure to allege enough facts showing an enforceable contract; alleged interest exceeding New York’s criminal-usury threshold; and account-stated and unjust-enrichment claims that allegedly duplicated the contract claim. These were arguments for a future motion to dismiss, not rulings by the court in this application.
Ruling
The application to adjourn the initial case-management conference was denied. The document is addressed to United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker and bears an “APPLICATION DENIED” notation. The supplied case information identifies Vernon Broderick as the judge. The opinion does not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss, determine whether the court has personal jurisdiction, or decide whether any of ABCMN’s claims ultimately succeeds.
Effect
The ruling rejected Chopp’s request to postpone the conference. It did not resolve the underlying contract, account-stated, or unjust-enrichment claims and did not decide the legal arguments that Chopp said he intended to raise in a motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.