JN Contemporary Art LLC v. Phillips Auctioneers LLC
- Denise Cote
- 1:20-cv-04370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In JN Contemporary Art LLC v. Phillips Auctioneers LLC, Judge Cote denied the plaintiff’s discovery request pending a decision on Phillips’s motion to dismiss.
JN Contemporary Art LLC’s request for discovery was denied pending a decision on Phillips Auctioneers LLC’s motion to dismiss.
What happened
JN Contemporary Art LLC sued Phillips Auctioneers LLC, which moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), a rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The plaintiff asked for targeted discovery before responding to that motion.
The plaintiff argued that discovery was needed to investigate Phillips’s decisions about consignment agreements, the parties’ intent, and defenses involving the pandemic and force majeure. It also argued that Phillips controlled important information and that the claims might otherwise be judged without enough supporting information.
In JN Contemporary Art LLC v. Phillips Auctioneers LLC, Judge Denise Cote denied the plaintiff’s discovery request pending a decision on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether the plaintiff’s claims were legally sufficient.
The detailed version
- JN Contemporary Art LLC v. Phillips Auctioneers LLC · No. 1:20-cv-04370
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Phillips Auctioneers LLC moved to dismiss JN Contemporary Art LLC’s second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was pending when the plaintiff sought discovery. The plaintiff’s letter stated that the motion did not automatically stay discovery and asked for targeted discovery concerning the plausibility of its claims.
The plaintiff identified issues involving a Stingel consignment agreement, a Basquiat guarantee agreement, Phillips’s termination of one consignment agreement while allegedly not terminating 24 others, and Phillips’s asserted use of the pandemic as a reason for termination. The plaintiff also sought information about Phillips’s intent, the drafting history of the agreements, other consignment agreements, and matters relevant to force majeure, impossibility of performance, and foreseeability.
Request and ruling
The plaintiff asked the court to stay a decision on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion until after court-ordered discovery. The endorsed order states: “Plaintiff’s request for discovery is denied pending a decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
Effect of the order
The ruling addressed the timing of discovery while the motion to dismiss was pending. It did not rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s causes of action or decide the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.