HGM v. JGV Apparel Group
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-07184
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In HGM v. JGV Apparel Group, Judge Carter granted defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference about jurisdiction and damages.
HGM must file a letter attaching the contract at issue by April 18, 2023. HGM, JGV Apparel Group, and the other parties must appear at the pre-motion conference on April 25, 2023, and be prepared to discuss the identified legal issues.
What happened
HGM v. JGV Apparel Group concerns HGM’s claim for lost business opportunities, profits, legal fees, and litigation costs allegedly resulting from a contract breach. The defendants argued that these damages were too speculative to satisfy the required amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction.
The court granted the defendants’ request for a pre-motion conference and scheduled it for April 25, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss relevant law, including when consequential damages and attorney’s fees may count toward the jurisdictional amount. HGM was also ordered to file the contract involved in the case by April 18, 2023.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss or resolve whether the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. The order instead set the conference and required HGM to provide the contract.
The detailed version
- HGM v. JGV Apparel Group · No. 1:22-cv-07184
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 10, 2023
Background
HGM’s amended complaint seeks damages for a “lost business opportunity and profits” allegedly caused by the defendants’ breach of contract. HGM also seeks legal fees described as “9% from the due date of July 7th, 2021,” along with litigation costs.
The defendants anticipated filing a motion to dismiss and argued that HGM’s claimed damages were “purely speculative” and therefore did not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for federal jurisdiction. Neither side cited supporting case law in its letter to the court.
Court’s Order
The court granted the defendants’ motion for a pre-motion conference. The conference was scheduled for April 25, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., and all parties were directed to appear.
The court instructed the parties to be prepared to discuss several legal issues, including whether reasonably foreseeable consequential damages can be recovered for a breach of contract under New York law; whether attorney’s fees can count toward the jurisdictional amount when they are recoverable as a matter of right under a statute or contract; and when a damages allegation can be rejected because it is legally certain that the amount recoverable does not exceed the jurisdictional minimum.
The court also directed HGM to file a letter attaching the contract at issue by April 18, 2023.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order did not rule on the anticipated motion to dismiss, decide whether HGM’s damages were speculative, or determine whether the amount-in-controversy requirement was satisfied. It set a conference and required HGM to submit the contract.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.