Eliantte & Co. v. Davis

Background

Eliantte & Co. sued Gervonta Davis on five claims: fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and account stated. Eliantte moved for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) on Counts II through V.

Eliantte alleged that Davis commissioned custom jewelry, including a diamond-encrusted charm, tennis chain, and Richard Mille RM 11 watch. Eliantte delivered the jewelry on December 28, 2019, in exchange for Davis’s personal check for $486,671.25. Davis asked Eliantte to wait five days before depositing the check, but the check was returned for insufficient funds. Eliantte stated that it had not received payment or the return of the jewelry.

The parties disputed whether Davis’s personal assistant, Ravone Littlejohn, promptly complained that the watch was defective. Davis relied on Littlejohn’s account that he reported the problem shortly after delivery. Eliantte disputed that account and presented evidence that Davis and Littlejohn later repeatedly assured Eliantte that Davis would pay the invoice.

Account-Stated Claim

Under New York law, an account stated is a debtor’s promise to pay a stated amount that the parties have accepted as the amount due. To establish the claim, a plaintiff must show that an account was presented, accepted as correct, and accompanied by a promise to pay. Acceptance and the promise to pay may be implied when the debtor keeps the statement without objecting within a reasonable time or gives assurances of payment.

The court concluded that no genuine dispute of material fact prevented judgment for Eliantte. Davis did not dispute receiving the invoice or failing to pay. The court found that the alleged timely objection was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the parties’ communications and Davis’s repeated assurances of payment. The court also concluded that later objections made after Eliantte had begun seeking payment through counsel were not timely objections to the account.

Other Claims and Disposition

The court held that Eliantte was entitled to judgment on Count V for $486,671.25, plus interest at the statutory rate of nine percent per year from the date of the underlying invoice until payment. Because the requested relief on the breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, and conversion claims was identical to the relief sought under the account-stated claim, the court dismissed Counts II through IV without prejudice.

Judge Victor Marrero’s order granted Eliantte’s motion for partial summary judgment as to Count V, entered judgment in Eliantte’s favor against Gervonta Davis for the stated amount and interest, and directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions. The opinion does not state a disposition for Count I, the fraud claim.