Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-09691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Asset Co IM Rest v. Katzoff, Judge Cronan ordered defendants to refile declarations opposing a preliminary injunction.
The defendants, including Gerald Katzoff, and Brent M. Davis, whose submitted declaration was also addressed, were required to refile the declarations by December 27, 2023.
What happened
Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Gerald “Jerry” Katzoff involved declarations submitted against the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, a court order that can temporarily require or restrict conduct. The defendants submitted declarations from Gerald Katzoff and Brent M. Davis.
The court found that both declarations failed to meet a federal law requiring an express statement that the information was certified as true under penalty of perjury. Each declaration only stated that it was made under that law.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the defendants to refile the declarations so they comply with the law by December 27, 2023. The order did not decide the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Asset Co IM Rest, LLC v. Katzoff · No. 1:23-cv-09691
- John Cronan
- Dec. 24, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs had moved for a preliminary injunction. In opposition, the defendants submitted declarations from Gerald Katzoff and Brent M. Davis, identified as Dockets 51-1 and 51-2.
Issue
The court examined whether the declarations complied with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. That statute permits certain written declarations to substitute for sworn statements, but the court cited Second Circuit precedent holding that the certification must expressly state that the matter is declared to be true under penalty of perjury.
Ruling
The court found that neither declaration contained the required language. Each document stated only that the declarant declared pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The court therefore ordered the defendants to refile both declarations so they conform to Section 1746 by December 27, 2023.
This order addressed the form of the declarations. It did not rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.