360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-08760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In 360 Mortgage Group v. Fortress Investment Group, Judge Schofield ordered further briefing on immunity and possible claim amendment.
360 Mortgage Group, LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC, whose further briefing, amendment-related letters, and possible settlement-deadline request were governed by the order.
What happened
360 Mortgage Group, LLC sued Fortress Investment Group LLC over alleged interference with contracts and business relationships, and alleged conspiracy. An earlier order dismissed the conspiracy claim and the claim involving prospective business relationships.
The court ordered both sides to file briefs about whether the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects Fortress, whether exceptions for sham conduct or corruption apply, and how the evidence relates to those exceptions and First Amendment principles. The parties must also file letters addressing whether the complaint should be amended to restore a claim concerning 360 Mortgage Group’s business relationship with GNMA. The court set deadlines for opening briefs, replies, and possible settlement discussions.
This order did not resolve the pending issues on their merits. Lorna G. Schofield, the district judge identified in the opinion, directed the additional briefing and related filings.
The detailed version
- 360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Fortress Investment Group LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08760
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
The First Amended Complaint asserted three claims: tortious interference with an existing contract; tortious interference with existing and prospective business relations; and civil conspiracy to commit tortious interference. An Opinion and Order dated September 3, 2020, dismissed the civil-conspiracy claim and the claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations.
The parties had briefed Fortress’s motion for summary judgment, but their briefing left unresolved questions about Fortress’s potential protection under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. That doctrine can protect certain petitioning activity from liability. The order states that New York law is assumed to apply when construing an affirmative defense to a New York cause of action.
Order
The court ordered the parties to simultaneously file briefs of no more than 15 pages by April 29, 2022, addressing:
- the extent to which the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should apply;
- the existence, scope, and applicability of the sham and corruption exceptions; and
- whether the evidence fits within any exception and relates to First Amendment principles.
The court instructed the parties that, where no controlling decision from the New York Court of Appeals or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit exists, they should explain how they predict the New York Court of Appeals would resolve the issue and provide persuasive authority. Reply briefs of no more than 10 pages were due May 13, 2022.
The court also ordered the parties to file separate letters by April 29, 2022, explaining why the First Amended Complaint should not be amended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to reinstate a tortious-interference claim involving 360 Mortgage Group’s business relationship with GNMA. The parties were required to notify the court by April 1, 2022, if they sought a stay of these deadlines to pursue settlement discussions and, if so, whether they wanted a referral to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, the court’s mediation program, or a private mediator.
Disposition and significance
This opinion is a procedural order directing additional briefing and letters. It does not state a final decision on Fortress’s potential Noerr-Pennington defense, the possible exceptions, the effect of the evidence, or whether the complaint should be amended. The order was issued by Lorna G. Schofield, United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.