The Pullman Group, LLC v. Bauknight
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-09713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In The Pullman Group v. Bauknight, Judge Failla converted the scheduled conference into a pre-motion conference and terminated docket entries 29 and 30.
The Pullman Group and the defendants were affected by the scheduling and filing directions for defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss, including the conversion of the February 3 conference and termination of docket entries 29 and 30.
What happened
The Pullman Group, LLC v. Bauknight involves The Pullman Group’s claims arising from the alleged sale of James Brown’s music-related assets without Pullman’s involvement. Defendants anticipated asking the court to dismiss the complaint and to pause discovery.
Pullman’s letter argued that the federal court had jurisdiction and that its contract and interference claims were legally sufficient. Pullman also argued that the probate exception and abstention doctrines did not prevent the federal court from hearing the case. These arguments were presented in response to defendants’ planned motion; the opinion does not decide them.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla converted the February 3, 2023 initial pretrial conference into a conference about the anticipated motion to dismiss. The court allowed Pullman to file a short supplemental response or address the issues at the conference and directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at docket entries 29 and 30.
The detailed version
- The Pullman Group, LLC v. Bauknight · No. 1:22-cv-09713
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 20, 2023
Background
The court received three letters from defendants and one response from The Pullman Group. Defendants’ letters requested a conference about an anticipated motion to dismiss, requested a stay of discovery while that motion was considered, and provided additional details about the proposed dismissal arguments.
According to Pullman’s response, it entered an agreement in 1999 with James Brown and James Brown Enterprises, Inc. concerning future income from Brown’s songs and related assets. Pullman alleged that the Brown defendants later sold those assets to Primary Wave Music Publishing and prevented Pullman from exercising an exclusive contractual right to arrange the transaction. Pullman sought money damages for alleged breaches of contract and interference with its contractual rights.
Parties’ Arguments
Pullman argued that the court had diversity jurisdiction, that its claims did not fall within the probate exception to federal jurisdiction, and that abstention was not appropriate because of related probate proceedings. Pullman also argued that the complaint adequately pleaded its contract and tortious-interference claims and that defendants’ anticipated defenses were premature or unsupported.
The court’s order does not resolve these jurisdictional, abstention, pleading, or merits arguments. It addresses the parties’ letters and the procedure for handling defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.
Court’s Order
Judge Katherine Polk Failla converted the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 3, 2023 into a pre-motion conference concerning defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. Pullman could file a supplemental letter of no more than three pages by January 25, 2023, or discuss defendants’ additional points orally at the conference instead. The parties did not need to file a joint letter or proposed case-management plan for the conference.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket entries 29 and 30. The opinion does not state that the anticipated motion to dismiss was filed or decide whether any claim should be dismissed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.