JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman

Background

Hayley Paige Gutman moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction previously entered in favor of JLM Couture, Inc. She argued that JLM breached the parties’ employment contract by failing to pay additional compensation allegedly due in 2021 and 2022. According to Gutman, those alleged breaches ended JLM’s right to seek injunctive enforcement of the contract’s restrictive provisions and provisions concerning use of her name and related materials.

Gutman separately asked the court to clarify whether the preliminary injunction required JLM to transfer the “@misshayleypaige” Pinterest and Instagram accounts to her by August 1, 2022, and to provide necessary assistance for the transfer.

The court had previously denied Gutman’s motion to dissolve the injunction in June 2021. In that decision, it found that the facts supporting her argument about unpaid compensation were known or available before the March 4, 2021 preliminary-injunction ruling. The court also considered the argument on its merits and concluded that Gutman had not shown that JLM breached its payment obligations, considering the contract’s language and Gutman’s cessation of work for JLM. The Second Circuit later affirmed that decision at the preliminary-injunction stage.

Dissolution motion

The court treated Gutman’s new dissolution motion as a motion for reconsideration of the June 2021 order because it relied on the same argument. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, a reconsideration motion must be served within 14 days after the order being challenged. Because Gutman waited more than a year, the court held that the motion was untimely. The court also stated that the motion was untimely even if treated as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which has a one-year limit for the relevant grounds.

The court further held that reconsideration would not be justified even if the motion were timely. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, or a need to correct a clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Gutman identified neither overlooked controlling law nor evidence that was unavailable earlier. The evidence she submitted could have been presented with her May 2021 motion, and the court viewed her renewed contract argument as an attempt to relitigate an issue already decided.

The court also rejected Gutman’s argument that JLM’s alleged failure to make an additional payment on March 1, 2022 independently warranted relief. JLM’s decision to stop making additional payments after Gutman stopped working in December 2020 had not changed, and the recurrence of a contractual payment deadline did not establish a material change in circumstances. The court likewise declined to revisit its earlier analysis of the balance of hardships and public interest.

Clarification request and disposition

The court denied Gutman’s request to clarify that JLM had to return the social-media accounts to her exclusive possession and control on August 1, 2022. It stated that it would address the parties’ obligations after that date in deciding JLM’s pending motion to modify the preliminary injunction.

The court denied in its entirety Gutman’s motion to dissolve the Preliminary Injunction Order and denied in its entirety her motion for clarification. The Preliminary Injunction Order remains in force in all other respects, and the case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Cave for general pretrial management.