G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Godinez
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-03868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In G&G Closed Circuit Events v. Godinez, Judge Halpern dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff lacked a New York certificate of authority.
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC’s action was dismissed without prejudice and without costs. The defendants obtained dismissal, subject to the plaintiff’s ability to seek reopening within 30 days after obtaining a New York certificate of authority.
What happened
In G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Godinez, the defendants asked the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff is a foreign limited liability company, and lawyers for all parties participated in the hearing by telephone.
The court found that the complaint showed the plaintiff conducts business in New York. It also found that the plaintiff had not obtained the certificate of authority required by New York law and that no exception applied.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under the federal rule concerning subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint without prejudice and without costs. The plaintiff may seek to reopen the action within 30 days if it obtains the required certificate.
The detailed version
- G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Godinez · No. 7:23-cv-03868
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
A pre-motion conference took place on September 5, 2023. Counsel for all parties appeared by telephone. The court heard argument on the defendants’ planned motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court treated the defendants’ pre-motion letter as their motion to dismiss and the plaintiff’s response letter as its opposition. The plaintiff is described as a foreign limited liability company. The court stated that the plaintiff had been notified of the certificate issue for at least 60 days.
Issue and analysis
The court determined that the complaint made a sufficient factual showing that the plaintiff conducts business in New York. Under New York Limited Liability Company Law § 808(a), the plaintiff was required to obtain a certificate of authority. The court found that the plaintiff had not obtained one and did not find that an exception under the statute applied.
Ruling and effect
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). It dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar the plaintiff from seeking to restore the action under the conditions stated in the order. The action was also dismissed without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar.
If the plaintiff obtains a certificate of authority from New York, it may file a letter requesting that the action be reopened within 30 days of the order. An application filed after that 30-day period may be denied solely because it was late.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.