Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 5, 2022
Docket7:18-cv-09026
StatusUnknown

This text of Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB (Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT MEMORANDUM ENDORSEMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB et al. DATE FILED: 10/5/2022 7:18-cv-09026 ee

The Court is in receipt of the attached letter from Defendants, dated September 23, 2022 (ECF No. A 65), and Plaintiff's response, dated September 26, 2022 (ECF No. 66). Defendants move to stay discovery, pending decision on Defendants’ motion for summary Judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a district court may stay discovery “for © good cause.” Fed.R.Civ. P. 26(c). When a motion is pending, courts typically consider several Q factors in determining whether to stay discovery; including: “(1) whether a defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff s claim is unmeritorious, (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it, and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the © stay.” Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., No. 15—cv—7250 (RWS), 2015 WL 8207466 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, S 2015). In their opening brief on their motion for summary judgment, Defendants seek dismissal of = Plaintiff's claims based on, inter alia, Plaintiffs alleged inability to quantify its damages. (See ECF No. 45 at 3-4.) However, Defendants have refused to provide discovery responses as to that issue. Plaintiff argues in its opposition brief to the motion for summary judgment that discovery is ongoing, that Plaintiffs damages will be primarily determined from financial documents requested but not yet received from Defendants, and that Plaintiff cannot quantify its damages in this case until Defendants produces the requested documents. (ECF No. 49 at 7.) In its September 26, 2022 letter, Plaintiff also argues that the sales by Defendant in violation of restrictive covenants under the Reseller Agreement are closely tied to the damages suffered by Plaintiff resulting therefrom. (ECF No 66 at 2.) Notably, on August 10, 2022, Magistrate Judge Davison granted Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, finding that Plaintiff was entitled to discovery on financial documents regarding their sales of non-exempt competing contact center products under the parties’ Reseller Agreement. Having considered the arguments in the parties’ letters, and in light of Judge Davison’s August 10, 2022 Order, the Court DENIES Defendants’ letter motion to stay and directs Defendants to comply with Judge Davison’s Order. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 65. Dated: October 5, 2022 SOORDERED: __ White Plains, NY gee > CA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1407 Broadway, Suite 4002 Wrobel New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 421-8100 Markham Fax: (212) 421-8170 Jodie Gerard, Esq. gerard@wmlawny.com September 23, 2022 Via ECF The Honorable Nelson S. Roman United States District Judge, Southern District of New York The Honorable Charles L. Brieant Jr. United States Courthouse 300 Quarropas Street White Plains, New York 10601 Re: — Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB et al., Case No. 7:18-cv-09026 (NSR) (PED) Dear Judge Roman: This firm represents defendants LoxySoft AB and LoxySoft Inc. (together, “LoxySoft” or “Defendant”) in the above-referenced matter. We respectfully request that the Court stay further discovery pending the Court’s determination on LoxySoft’s pending motion for summary judgment, which was fully briefed and submitted as of August 2, 2022. See ECF Nos. 43 - 64.' As set forth herein, there is good cause to stay further discovery in this matter because, inter alia, Plaintiff has wasted four years of judicial resources pursuing an untimely breach of contract claim that, even if timely, fails because the alleged breach did not result in any damages to Plaintiff. Background In its Complaint, filed on October 6, 2018, Plaintiff asserted five causes of action against LoxySoft: (1) breach of contract against LoxySoft AB; (2) tortious interference with prospective economic benefit; (3) unfair competition; (4) deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349; and (5) unfair competition and reverse passing off under the Lanham Act 43(a) 14 U.S.C. §1125(A). LoxySoft moved for dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, and by Opinion and Order dated December 16, 2021, this Court dismissed all claims, except for Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. See ECF No. 26, p. 8. As to the breach of contract claim, this Court held that “[a]s it is not clear from Plaintiff's complaint or the Reseller Agreement that its breach of contract claim 1s untimely, dismissal is inappropriate at this stage.” /d. at 5. The parties subsequently engaged in discovery, during which LoxySoft served Plaintiff with discovery requests seeking Plaintiff's evidence in reply to LoxySoft’s statute of limitations

Plaintiff filed a letter to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison seeking to compel discovery on July 25, 2022 (ECF No. 38). At an August 10, 2022 conference, Magistrate Judge Davison granted Plaintiff's motion to compel and stated that LoxySoft may appeal His Honor’s decision or move to stay. We filed a pre-motion letter to Magistrate Judge Davison requesting leave to move to stay (ECF No. 62), and, at a September 16, 2022 status conference, Magistrate Judge Davison directed that Loxysoft either make the instant application to Your Honor or comply with His Honor’s August Order.

Page 2 defense and in support of Plaintiff’s alleged claim for damages.2 In response, Plaintiff failed to produce any documentary proof regarding these matters, and Plaintiff’s counsel then conceded in a May 9, 2022 email that it has “produced all documents in its possession and control required under Rule 26 and in response to defendants’ discovery requests.” See ECF No. 28 (May 9, 2022 email from Plaintiff’s counsel). After seeking permission, LoxySoft was granted leave by this Court to move for summary judgment. See ECF Nos 28, 31. In its motion, LoxySoft argues that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiff: (i) fails to offer any evidence of the existence of its damages, and (ii)fails to prove that its claim is within the statute of limitations. In opposition, Plaintiff claims that it needs information regarding LoxySoft’s sales of “Contact Software Products” (see ECF No. 47-5, No. 2) to prove Plaintiff’s damages from the alleged breach of contract – a proposition refuted by case law. Discovery Should be Stayed Pending Disposition of the Summary Judgment Motion The Court can stay discovery for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Factors to consider include: “(1) whether a defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiff's claim is unmeritorious, (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it, and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.” Am. Fed’n of Musicians & Employers’ Pension Fund v. Atl. Recording Corp., No. 1:15-cv-6267, 2016 WL 2641122, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). (1) Plaintiff’s claim is without merit and time-barred In its motion for summary judgment, LoxySoft demonstrates that Plaintiff’s claim is without merit because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any damages and, moreover, Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred. It cannot be disputed that, in order to prevail on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate damages. See Milan Music, Inc. v. Emmel Commc'ns Booking, Inc., 37 A.D.3d 206, 829 N.Y.S.2d 485, 486 (1st Dept. 2007).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Milan Music, Inc. v. Emmel Communications Booking, Inc.
37 A.D.3d 206 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Savitsky v. Sukenik
240 A.D.2d 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Gomez v. Bicknell
302 A.D.2d 107 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calltrol-corporation-v-loxysoft-ab-nysd-2022.