United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In SEC v. Collector’s Coffee, Judge Marrero denied both summary-judgment motions, leaving ownership and creditor-rights claims over Jackie Robinson contracts for trial.
The secured creditors, the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Collector’s Coffee Inc., and the parties’ competing claims to the Jackie Robinson contracts are affected; both summary-judgment motions were denied, so the declaratory-judgment claims proceed to trial.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., the SEC alleged that Collector’s Coffee Inc. and Mykalai Kontilai defrauded investors. The company’s valuable assets included two contracts signed by Jackie Robinson. Secured creditors claimed the contracts were collateral for approximately $6 million in defaulted loans, while the Jackie Robinson Foundation claimed ownership.
The secured creditors asked for a ruling that they had the first perfected interest in the contracts and that the company had owned them when they were pledged as collateral. The Jackie Robinson Foundation asked for a ruling that it owned the contracts. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a dispute without a trial.
Judge Victor Marrero adopted Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein’s recommendation in full and denied both summary-judgment motions. The declaratory-judgment claims will proceed to trial.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- June 7, 2023
Background
The SEC brought this action against Collector’s Coffee Inc., doing business as Collector’s Café, and Mykalai Kontilai, alleging violations of federal securities laws through investor fraud. Kontilai was identified as CCI’s founder, president, and chief executive officer.
The opinion states that CCI’s only assets of value were original contracts signed by Jackie Robinson. CCI’s secured creditors—SDJ Investments, LLC; Adobe Investments, LLC; and Darren Sivertsen, as trustee of the Sivertsen Family Trust U/A/D 10/01/2002—intervened and claimed ownership of the contracts. They asserted that the contracts had been used as collateral for approximately $6 million in loans to CCI, which were in default.
The Jackie Robinson Foundation, Inc. replaced the Los Angeles Dodgers, LLC as an intervenor-defendant after the Dodgers gifted its rights in the contracts to the Foundation. The Foundation then filed a crossclaim seeking a declaration that it, rather than CCI, owned the contracts.
Motions
The secured creditors moved for summary judgment on the second cause of action for declaratory relief. They sought rulings that the Jackie Robinson Foundation and the Los Angeles Dodgers had no rights in the contracts, that CCI had clear title and ownership when it pledged the contracts as collateral, and that the secured creditors held a first-position perfected interest in them.
The Jackie Robinson Foundation cross-moved for summary judgment against the creditors’ motion and in support of its own claim for a declaration that it owned the contracts.
Court’s Analysis
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended that both motions be denied and that the declaratory-judgment claims proceed to trial. No party objected to the recommendation, and more than fourteen days had passed after it was served.
Judge Marrero reviewed the record, the parties’ motion papers, the recommendation, and the applicable law. He concluded that the recommendation’s factual and legal analysis was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation dated May 22, 2023, in full. It denied the summary-judgment motion filed by Adobe Investments, LLC, SDJ Investments, LLC, and Darren Sivertsen as trustee of the Sivertsen Family Trust U/A/D 10/01/2002. It also denied the Jackie Robinson Foundation’s summary-judgment motion. The opinion states that the declaratory-judgment claims will proceed to trial.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.
Related cases
- 789 Ninthv. Hundalani
- Elianttev. Davis
- Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund…Mar 2022
- Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund and…Aug 2021
- Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund…Aug 2021
- General Electricv. PLC