Taub v. Arrayit Corporation
- Carter
- 1:15-cv-01366
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Taub v. Arrayit Corporation, Judge Carter granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion in limine, but did not enter judgment and allowed a settlement-enforcement motion.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs—Reuben Taub, Irwin L. Zalcberg, and the Irwin Zalcberg Profit Sharing Plan—and the defendants—Arrayit Corporation, Rene Schena, Mark Schena, and Todd Martinsky. The plaintiffs’ motion in limine was granted, but no judgment was entered against the defendants.
What happened
Taub v. Arrayit Corporation concerns claims by Reuben Taub, Irwin L. Zalcberg, and the Irwin Zalcberg Profit Sharing Plan against Arrayit Corporation, Rene Schena, Mark Schena, and Todd Martinsky. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and fraudulent inducement involving their investments.
The court said the defendants did not file pretrial materials, request more time, or oppose the plaintiffs’ motion in limine, which asks the court to decide certain evidence issues before trial. The court therefore treated the plaintiffs’ submissions as unopposed.
Judge Carter granted the motion in limine in its entirety, but declined to enter judgment based only on the defendants’ failure to oppose the motion or submit pretrial materials. The plaintiffs were allowed to file a motion seeking enforcement of the parties’ unsigned settlement agreement, and the clerk was directed to terminate the open motion.
The detailed version
- Taub v. Arrayit Corporation · No. 1:15-cv-01366
- Carter
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
Reuben Taub, Irwin L. Zalcberg, and the Irwin Zalcberg Profit Sharing Plan sued Arrayit Corporation, Rene Schena, Mark Schena, and Todd Martinsky. The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract and fraudulent inducement of their investments.
After motion practice and the close of discovery, the court ordered the parties to file pretrial submissions in preparation for a bench trial. The plaintiffs filed their submissions on time. The defendants did not file pretrial submissions, request an extension, or oppose the plaintiffs’ motion in limine. A motion in limine asks a court to rule before trial on the admissibility or relevance of anticipated evidence.
Rulings
The court treated the plaintiffs’ pretrial submissions and motion as unopposed and granted the motion in limine in its entirety. The court had considered whether to enter judgment for the plaintiffs because of the defendants’ failure to oppose the motion and submit pretrial materials, but declined to enter judgment on that basis.
The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a motion to enforce the parties’ unsigned Settlement Agreement. It set deadlines of April 14, 2023, for the plaintiffs’ initial brief; April 28, 2023, for the defendants’ opposition; and May 5, 2023, for any reply. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motion at ECF No. 232.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.