Phillips v. Citibank, N.A.

Nature of the filing

The supplied document is a notice filed by plaintiffs Grant Phillips and Scott B. Phillips, whom the notice calls the “Phillips Brothers.” It is not a judicial opinion or order. The notice states that, on September 30, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with another case, lift a stay under an abstention order, and obtain permission to file a second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs stated that they were withdrawing that motion “without prejudice” to their right to refile all or part of it later. Here, “without prejudice” describes the plaintiffs’ stated reservation of the right to renew the motion; the document does not state that the court dismissed or otherwise ruled on the motion.

Reasons given for withdrawal

The plaintiffs identified two main developments:

1. In the other case, The Lightstone Group, LLC, et al. v. Phillips, et al., Case No. 20-cv-6051, an amended complaint added the plaintiffs’ attorneys as defendants. The plaintiffs said that complaint raised a possible federal-jurisdiction issue because the complaint alleged that attorney David Berlin was a New York citizen, while two plaintiffs in that case were also alleged to be New York citizens. The plaintiffs said that, if consolidation occurred and that allegation were established, diversity jurisdiction could be destroyed in both cases. The notice also stated that defendants in the other case intended to seek dismissal and permission to seek sanctions.

2. Citibank filed a status report about related proceedings in Surrogate’s Court. According to the notice, the assigned attorney said that the court was working on pending motions and would issue decisions as soon as practicable. Citibank stated that those decisions might eliminate some or all claims or issues in this federal case. The plaintiffs said they accepted Citibank’s representations that the proceedings would move forward and that they did not want to litigate the dispute in two forums at the same time.

The plaintiffs also stated that continued legal fees paid by the trust would unnecessarily increase if both proceedings continued simultaneously. They expressed concern that other participants might cause additional delays, but said they would renew the motion if the Surrogate’s Court proceedings again became excessively delayed.

Disposition shown by the document

No judicial disposition appears in the supplied text. The plaintiffs—not the court—stated that they were withdrawing the consolidation motion. The document therefore does not establish that Judge Alvin Hellerstein granted, denied, dismissed, or otherwise resolved that motion.