Money Tree Capital Funding, LLC v. Money Tree Capital Markets LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-10084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Money Tree Capital Funding v. Money Tree Capital Markets, Judge Ramos granted Anthony Lee and Eastone Equities a discovery stay pending their motion to dismiss.
The order pauses discovery for defendants Anthony Lee and Eastone Equities LLC while their motion to dismiss is pending. It also affects the plaintiff and the other parties because discovery in the matter is stayed as to the Lee Defendants.
What happened
In Money Tree Capital Funding, LLC v. Money Tree Capital Markets LLC, defendants Anthony Lee and Eastone Equities LLC asked the court to pause all discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. They sought the same treatment previously given to other defendants.
The Lee Defendants argued that the complaint did not adequately support its conversion claim against them. They said the claim concerned an unsecured loan debt, lacked allegations that they controlled or interfered with property, and repeated a contract claim. These were arguments about the expected dismissal motion, not a ruling on that motion.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Anthony Lee and Eastone Equities LLC’s request for a stay of discovery until the court decides their motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide whether the conversion claim should be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Money Tree Capital Funding, LLC v. Money Tree Capital Markets LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10084
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
Defendants Anthony Lee and Eastone Equities LLC, referred to in the opinion as the “Lee Defendants,” submitted a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, all discovery until the court decided their anticipated motion to dismiss. The request followed a January 18, 2023 pre-motion conference. The opinion states that the court had already granted a discovery stay to defendants Global Bank and Kevin Yu while their motion to dismiss was pending.
The plaintiff asserted a conversion claim against the Lee Defendants. Conversion is a claim that a defendant wrongfully exercised control over someone else’s property. The Lee Defendants argued that the complaint did not adequately plead that claim because, in their view, the plaintiff sought payment of an outstanding debt from unsecured loans, did not identify a property interest supporting conversion, and did not allege that the Lee Defendants controlled or interfered with the property. They also argued that the conversion claim duplicated a breach-of-contract claim.
Request and Arguments
The Lee Defendants argued that their request should be treated like the discovery stay granted to the Bank Defendants because their anticipated dismissal arguments were substantially similar. They disputed the plaintiff’s counsel’s characterization of Lee and Eastone as members of the “Borrower” defendants and stated that they were being sued separately: Lee as an individual and Eastone as a corporate entity.
The letter argued that the conversion claim was likely subject to dismissal and that discovery should therefore be paused while the court considered the motion. The opinion does not itself decide the motion to dismiss, determine whether the conversion claim is legally sufficient, or make findings about the alleged conduct.
Ruling
The court granted the Lee Defendants’ request for a stay of discovery pending their motion to dismiss. Judge Edgardo Ramos’s order states: “Defendants Anthony Lee and Eastone Equities LLC’s request for a stay of discovery pending their motion to dismiss is granted.” The ruling concerned discovery only; it did not state that the motion to dismiss was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.