JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-10575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In JLM Couture v. Gutman, Judge Cave granted motions to quash execution subpoenas because the judgment was nonfinal.
JLM Couture, Inc.’s information subpoenas against Hayley Paige Gutman, Conrad Louis Clevlen, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Donna Gutman, and She Is Cheval LLC were quashed.
What happened
JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman involved subpoenas seeking information to help enforce a January 5, 2023 judgment. The motions were filed by the defendants, their law firm Haynes and Boone, LLP, Donna Gutman, and She Is Cheval LLC.
The court explained that the judgment was not final and that nonfinal judgments generally cannot be enforced through execution procedures. JLM Couture had not provided legal authority allowing these information subpoenas before execution was permitted.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the motions and quashed the information subpoenas. The order addressed enforcement procedures and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman · No. 1:20-cv-10575
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 26, 2023
Background
JLM Couture issued information subpoenas to Defendants Hayley Paige Gutman and Conrad Louis Clevlen, Defendants’ counsel Haynes and Boone, LLP, non-party Donna Gutman, and non-party She Is Cheval LLC. The subpoenas were issued to assist with enforcing the court’s January 5, 2023 judgment. Each of those recipients moved to quash, meaning to invalidate, the subpoenas.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the judgment was nonfinal, relying on Chief Judge Laura Swain’s explanation in denying Defendant Gutman’s motion for reconsideration. The court further stated that nonfinal judgments ordinarily may not be enforced through writs of execution under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 69(a). JLM Couture had not provided authority supporting information subpoenas to aid execution when execution was not yet permitted under those rules.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted all of the motions and quashed the information subpoenas in aid of execution. The order concerned enforcement of the judgment and did not address the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.