Rosen v. Sapir
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-05844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rosen v. Sapir, Judge Abrams planned a hearing on Rosen’s request for a temporary restraining order and required the parties to address whether the court could issue it.
Rotem Rosen, Alex Sapir, and 260-261 Madison Avenue Junior Mezzanine LLC; the order also required action by the parties collectively.
What happened
In Rosen v. Sapir, Rotem Rosen asked the court to order an attachment and a temporary restraining order. After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the court said it presently intended to hold a hearing on the request on April 5, 6, or 7, 2022.
The court ordered the parties to submit a joint letter by March 21 stating their availability and proposing an expedited briefing schedule. They also had to discuss possible protections for Rosen before the hearing and whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 allowed the court to issue the requested order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also required Rosen to explain why he expected the Madison Properties and related sale proceeds to be transferred before the hearing, and why the defendants would then lack enough assets in New York to satisfy a potential judgment. The court did not grant or deny the temporary restraining order in this order, but warned that efforts by the defendants to shield assets could lead to negative inferences against them.
The detailed version
- Rosen v. Sapir · No. 1:20-cv-05844
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
Rotem Rosen submitted an order to show cause seeking an attachment and a temporary restraining order against Alex Sapir and 260-261 Madison Avenue Junior Mezzanine LLC. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the specific relief sought beyond the attachment and temporary restraining-order request. The parties submitted letters responding to the request.
Court’s Action
After reviewing those submissions and considering its schedule, the court stated that it presently intended to schedule a hearing on Rosen’s temporary-restraining-order application for April 5, April 6, or April 7, 2022. The court directed the parties to submit a joint letter by March 21 stating their availability and proposing an expedited briefing schedule before the hearing.
The joint letter also had to address what measures, short of a temporary restraining order, could protect Rosen’s interests before the hearing. In addition, the parties had to address whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 authorized the court to issue the requested order. The court cited authority stating that Rule 65 may not authorize a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction preventing a defendant from dissipating assets before judgment in an action for money damages.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court instructed Rosen to explain why he believed he would suffer irreparable harm before the hearing. Specifically, he had to explain why the sale of the Madison Properties, the transfer of the sale proceeds to 260-261 Madison’s bank accounts, and the transfer of those proceeds out of the accounts and New York State were likely to occur before the first week of April. Rosen also had to explain why, assuming those events occurred, neither defendant would have enough assets in New York State to satisfy a potential judgment. The defendants could respond in the joint letter, in a later brief, or in a separate letter.
The court advised the defendants that any attempt before the April hearing to transfer assets to shield them from judgment would likely result in negative inferences against them.
Disposition
This order did not grant or deny Rosen’s temporary restraining-order application. Instead, it contemplated a future hearing and required further submissions from the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.