Suber v. VVP Services, LLC
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-08177
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 50
In Suber v. VVP Services, LLC, Judge Nathan denied Suber’s emergency request for restraints and expedited discovery, then unsealed the filings.
Karen M. Suber’s requested emergency protections were denied, so the defendants were not immediately subjected to the requested restraints or expedited discovery. The application, the March 11 order, and Suber’s letter were made public.
What happened
In Suber v. VVP Services, LLC, Karen M. Suber asked the court to act without notifying the defendants. She sought temporary restraints, an asset freeze, expedited discovery, and an order requiring the defendants to explain why a longer preliminary injunction should not issue.
Suber argued that the defendants might sell or hide assets, destroy records, or make a future judgment uncollectible. She focused especially on the proposed sale of the Collingwood Property, which she said was worth about $30 million. These were Suber’s allegations and arguments; the court did not decide whether they were true.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the requested emergency relief because Suber had not shown that immediate harm was likely before the defendants could respond. The court later unsealed the application, the March 11 order, and Suber’s letter after Suber stated that she had no reason to keep them sealed.
The detailed version
- Suber v. VVP Services, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08177
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 23, 2021
Background
Karen M. Suber filed an application without notice to the defendants for a temporary restraining order, an asset-restraining order, expedited discovery, and an order requiring the defendants to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Her proposed relief would have restricted transfers of assets associated with Stratton Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, including the Collingwood Property, and would have required financial and other document production.
Suber argued that the defendants might conceal or transfer assets and destroy business records before they could respond. Her filing emphasized allegations that the defendants had put an approximately $30 million property on the market and that Stratton Sclavos had been reducing his assets through an excessive lifestyle. The filing also alleged fraudulent conduct and other wrongdoing, but the order at issue did not decide the truth of those allegations or the merits of Suber’s underlying claims.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Nathan explained that emergency relief without notice is available only in extraordinary circumstances. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), the applicant must provide specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the opposing party can be heard. The court stated that a mere possibility of harm was not enough and that the potential injury had to be actual and imminent.
The court concluded that Suber had not made that showing. It identified as the primary grounds for the request the allegations that Sclavos had reduced his purported fortune through an excessive lifestyle, including an alleged drug problem, and that the defendants had recently listed an approximately $30 million property for sale. The court held that those allegations did not establish imminent harm or meet the high standard for immediate relief without notice.
Ruling
On March 11, 2021, Judge Alison J. Nathan denied Suber’s motion for the requested ex parte relief. The order also directed Suber to explain why the order and the moving papers should not be placed on the public docket. Suber later stated in a March 18 letter that she had no reason to keep the materials sealed. The March 22 order therefore unsealed the ex parte application, the March 11 order, and the letter, and attached them to the order. The materials include a proposed restraining order, but the court’s order does not state that the proposed order was issued.
Read the full 50-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.