NYC Vision Capital, Inc. v. C21FC, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-03071
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In NYC Vision Capital v. C21FC, Judge Liman denied a motion to strike and scheduled a conference about an evidentiary hearing on settlement enforcement.
NYC Vision Capital, Inc., Syeda Mondal, Elie Islam, Wali Mondal, C21FC, LLC, Alan Singer, Eric Hillman, and Zach Singer; the order also addressed an affidavit submitted by plaintiffs’ former attorney, Elliot Ginsburg.
What happened
NYC Vision Capital, Inc. v. C21FC, LLC concerns defendants’ motion to enforce a written settlement agreement and their request to strike an affidavit filed by plaintiffs’ former lawyer.
The court denied the motion to strike. It found that the affidavit properly addressed new facts and arguments that defendants raised for the first time in their reply, even though plaintiffs had not requested permission to file it. The court also scheduled a telephone conference to discuss an evidentiary hearing on the settlement-enforcement motion.
Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on May 4, 2023. The order did not decide whether the settlement agreement should be enforced.
The detailed version
- NYC Vision Capital, Inc. v. C21FC, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-03071
- Lewis Liman
- May 4, 2023
Background
Defendants C21FC, LLC, Alan Singer, Eric Hillman, and Zach Singer moved to enforce a written settlement agreement against plaintiffs NYC Vision Capital, Inc., Syeda Mondal, Elie Islam, and Wali Mondal. Defendants relied on the four-factor test described in Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp.
Plaintiffs submitted a reply affidavit from their former attorney, Elliot Ginsburg. Defendants moved to strike the affidavit because plaintiffs had not asked for permission to file a sur-reply, meaning a filing responding to new material in an opposing party’s reply. Defendants’ reply had raised additional facts for the first time, including an alleged February 22, 2023 telephone agreement between Ginsburg and defendants concerning the remaining disputed issues.
Rulings
The court denied defendants’ motion to strike. Although it stated that plaintiffs should have requested permission to file the sur-reply, the court exercised its discretion to overlook that procedural error. It determined that the filing was appropriate because it was limited to addressing the new argument and evidence in defendants’ reply.
The court scheduled a telephone status conference for May 8, 2023, to discuss scheduling an evidentiary hearing on defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The parties were directed to be prepared to discuss the evidence and witnesses they would present. This order did not decide the settlement-enforcement motion itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.