DSB Holdings, LLC v. Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-10972
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DSB Holdings v. Pioneer Investment Management, Judge Woods granted the application in part, denied the dismissal motion without prejudice, and scheduled a teleconference.
DSB Holdings, LLC and Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc.; the court’s order addresses the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss and sets a teleconference.
What happened
DSB Holdings, LLC brought a breach-of-contract claim against Pioneer Investment Management, Inc.; the defendant is now identified as Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc. The defendant asked to dismiss the complaint under the rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.
Amundi Pioneer argued that New York’s six-year deadline for contract claims barred the claim and that DSB’s allegations were too vague and implausible. DSB opposed the pending dismissal motion.
The court granted the application in part, denied the pending dismissal motion without prejudice, and scheduled a teleconference about the proposed dismissal motion. Judge Gregory H. Woods also directed the Clerk to terminate the motions listed at Docket Nos. 5 and 9.
The detailed version
- DSB Holdings, LLC v. Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10972
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
The opinion is a memorandum endorsement of defense counsel’s request concerning a pending motion to dismiss. DSB Holdings, LLC’s complaint asserts a breach-of-contract claim against Amundi Pioneer Asset Management, Inc., formerly known as Pioneer Investment Management, Inc. The defendant removed the action on November 27, 2019, filed a motion to dismiss on December 3, 2019, and submitted the request after the case was assigned to the court.
The Defendant’s Arguments
The defendant sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. It argued that New York law governed the contract issue and that the claim was barred by New York’s six-year limitations period for contract actions.
The defendant also argued that DSB’s allegations were speculative and conclusory. According to the defendant, DSB alleged that a former portfolio manager held secret meetings with Galvstar’s landlord and business partners and shared confidential information as part of a plan to drive Galvstar out of business. The defendant argued that the complaint did not adequately identify the confidential information and required implausible inferences about the defendant’s conduct, the cause of DSB’s financial problems, and the landlord’s removal of equipment.
Court’s Action
The court granted the application in part. It denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss pending at Docket No. 5. The court scheduled a teleconference regarding the defendant’s proposed motion to dismiss for December 20, 2019, and directed the parties to call chambers with all parties on the line. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Nos. 5 and 9.
Judge Gregory H. Woods did not decide the statute-of-limitations or pleading arguments in this order. The opinion does not specify which part of the application was granted beyond the scheduled teleconference and related handling of the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.