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 granted Plaintiff’s motion, vacated the dismissal, and reinstated the federal claims.
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, Reinaldo Godinez, and Dos Amigos Inc.; the lawsuit was reinstated, the case was reopened, and Defendants were required to answer within 14 days.
What happened
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Godinez concerns Plaintiff’s request to undo an earlier order dismissing its lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal communications laws, and Defendants had sought permission to move for dismissal based on the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
The Court had previously dismissed the action after concluding that Plaintiff needed to satisfy New York’s business-registration requirement. Plaintiff argued that requirement did not apply because its claims relied only on federal-question jurisdiction. The Court agreed that state law could not limit Plaintiff’s ability to bring this federal-law action in federal court.
Judge Halpern granted Plaintiff’s motion to change the judgment, vacated the September 6, 2023 dismissal order, and reinstated the Complaint. The case was reopened, and Defendants were ordered to answer within 14 days.
The detailed version
- G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Godinez · No. 7:23-cv-03868
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 19, 2024
Background
G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC sued Reinaldo Godinez and Dos Amigos Inc. The Complaint asserted two claims under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, and therefore relied exclusively on federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal-question jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear claims arising under federal law.
Defendants requested a pre-motion conference seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s jurisdiction. After the conference, the Court’s September 6, 2023 Order dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice to restoring it to the Court’s calendar, if Plaintiff applied within 30 days and obtained a certificate of authority.
Motion and Analysis
Plaintiff moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The motion sought to vacate the September 6 dismissal and reinstate Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff argued that New York Limited Liability Company Law § 808(a), described in the opinion as New York’s “door-closing” statute, did not apply to an action based solely on federal-question jurisdiction. The Court agreed. It reasoned that state law could not impose limitations on a plaintiff’s ability to begin an action in federal court when the action is based exclusively on federal-question jurisdiction.
Disposition
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. It vacated the September 6, 2023 Order, reinstated the Complaint, directed Defendants to file an Answer within 14 days of the Order’s issuance, reopened the case, and terminated the motion sequence pending at Doc. 34.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.