Freeman v. Jacobson

Background

Aaron Freeman sued Trevor Jacobson and Jordan Usdin for alleged conversion of stock, conversion of Freeman’s dog Saylor, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Freeman alleged that he and Jacobson agreed to buy and share 300 shares of Match Group stock, but that Jacobson kept the shares after Freeman demanded his half. Freeman also alleged that he adopted Saylor, shared custody of the dog with Jacobson, and that Jacobson later refused to return Saylor.

According to the complaint, Freeman took Saylor to California in October 2019 after Jacobson refused to return the dog. Freeman alleged that Usdin and an unknown man then took Saylor from him, that the unknown man restrained and threatened him, and that Jacobson planned or supported the incident. Freeman further alleged that Jacobson interfered with his phone service and filed a police report claiming ownership of Saylor.

The Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss on four grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, expiration of the applicable time limits, and failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Freeman invoked federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires citizens of different states and more than $75,000 in dispute. The defendants argued that Freeman could not establish the required amount.

The court denied dismissal on this ground. It held that Freeman had shown a reasonable probability that his claims exceeded $75,000 when the alleged stock losses, emotional-distress damages, and potentially available punitive damages were considered together. The court noted that the stock was alleged to be worth approximately $22,425 at the relevant point and that Freeman alleged emotional distress and intentional conduct connected to the alleged assault and taking of Saylor.

Forum Non Conveniens

The defendants argued that Freeman was improperly seeking a tactical advantage by suing in New York instead of California. The court rejected the argument. It found that the defendants had not shown that the Southern District of New York was inconvenient, had not proposed an adequate alternative forum, and had not identified any hardship from litigating in New York. The court therefore declined to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.

Timeliness

The defendants argued that Freeman’s assault, battery, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims were subject to New York’s one-year limitations period and accrued on October 24, 2019. Because Freeman filed his complaint on December 1, 2020, the defendants argued that those claims were late.

The court held that New York’s limitations period applied but that New York executive orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic continuously paused the limitations period for 258 days. Applying that pause, the court concluded that Freeman could timely file the claims through July 9, 2021. The court therefore held that the claims were not time-barred.

Sufficiency of the Claims

The court also held that the complaint stated legally sufficient claims under the standard governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions. At this stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly supported relief.

For the stock-conversion claim, the court found that Freeman alleged ownership of half the shares, repeated demands for their transfer, and Jacobson’s refusal. The court also held that electronically recorded stock could be the subject of a conversion claim under New York’s merger doctrine.

For unjust enrichment, the court found that Freeman adequately alleged that Jacobson accepted Freeman’s contribution toward the shares, controlled the shares, and reneged on an agreement to divide them.

For the claims involving Saylor, the court found that Freeman adequately alleged that Jacobson exercised unauthorized control over the dog, that Usdin either aided and abetted the conversion or directly took the dog, and that Freeman demanded Saylor’s return.

For assault and battery, the court found sufficient allegations that the unknown man threatened Freeman, restrained him, pressed a hard object against him that he believed was a gun, and acted without his consent. The court also found sufficient allegations that Jacobson and Usdin knew of and substantially assisted the alleged assault and battery.

For intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court found that the alleged combination of threats, the planned taking of Saylor, the physical attack, the alleged phone interference, and the police report could support a finding of a continuous pattern of malicious behavior that went beyond ordinary tort conduct.

Disposition

The court concluded that Freeman had successfully pleaded each claim and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the ultimate truth of the allegations or whether Freeman would prevail at trial. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion.