Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano

S.D. New York

Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 2, 2026·No. 1:20-cv-05427·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRAIG MOLESPHINI and ELEPHANT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, 20 Civ. 5427 (KPF)

-v.- ORDER ANTHONY GIORDANO Defendant. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: On December 23, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to propose, on or before December 31, 2025, a reasonable briefing schedule for Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. (Dkt. #90; see also Dkt. #91). The Court has reviewed Defendant’s letter proposing a schedule (Dkt. #92), Plaintiffs’ response and alternative proposed schedule (Dkt. #93), Defendant’s reply (Dkt. #94), and Plaintiffs’ sur-reply (Dkt. #95). The Court is disappointed to learn that the parties were unable to agree on a schedule. The Court agrees with the parties’ initial impulse to pursue pre-motion mediation. (See Dkt. #94-2). The Court is (again) disappointed to learn that this initial plan did not come to fruition. (See id.). But it is not the Court’s practice to force parties to pursue alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. As such, and after reviewing the parties’ separate proposals, the Court instead sets the following schedule for Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint: • Defendant shall submit his opening brief on or before January 12, 2026. • Plaintiffs shall submit their opposition brief on or before February 2, 2026. • Defendant shall submit his reply brief on or before February 16, 2026. Absent compelling circumstances, there will be no extensions of this schedule. Separately, the current record before the Court causes it concern that Ms. Rogovin may be uncomfortably close to committing the unlawful practice of law without being admitted to this District. See Upsolve, Inc. v. James, 155 F.4th 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2025) (explaining that the rendering of legal advice and opinions directed to particular clients constitutes the unlawful practice of law); Wynns v. Adams, 426 B.R. 457, 462–63 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Wynns v. Davis, 435 F. App’x 27 (2d Cir. 2011) (adding that appearing in court and holding oneself out to be a lawyer, drafting legal documents, and preparing

legal instruments also constitute the unlawful practice of law). Though the Court does not at this time have sufficient information to conclude that Ms. Rogovin is indeed unlawfully practicing law in this District, it warns her to proceed with great care.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 2, 2026 New York, New York KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRAIG MOLESPHINI and ELEPHANT ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Plaintiff, 20 Civ. 5427 (KPF)

-v.- ORDER ANTHONY GIORDANO Defendant. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: On December 23, 2025, the Court ordered the parties to propose, on or before December 31, 2025, a reasonable briefing schedule for Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. (Dkt. #90; see also Dkt. #91). The Court has reviewed Defendant’s letter proposing a schedule (Dkt. #92), Plaintiffs’ response and alternative proposed schedule (Dkt. #93), Defendant’s reply (Dkt. #94), and Plaintiffs’ sur-reply (Dkt. #95). The Court is disappointed to learn that the parties were unable to agree on a schedule. The Court agrees with the parties’ initial impulse to pursue pre-motion mediation. (See Dkt. #94-2). The Court is (again) disappointed to learn that this initial plan did not come to fruition. (See id.). But it is not the Court’s practice to force parties to pursue alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. As such, and after reviewing the parties’ separate proposals, the Court instead sets the following schedule for Defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint: • Defendant shall submit his opening brief on or before January 12, 2026. • Plaintiffs shall submit their opposition brief on or before February 2, 2026. • Defendant shall submit his reply brief on or before February 16, 2026. Absent compelling circumstances, there will be no extensions of this schedule. Separately, the current record before the Court causes it concern that Ms. Rogovin may be uncomfortably close to committing the unlawful practice of law without being admitted to this District. See Upsolve, Inc. v. James, 155 F.4th 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2025) (explaining that the rendering of legal advice and opinions directed to particular clients constitutes the unlawful practice of law); Wynns v. Adams, 426 B.R. 457, 462–63 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Wynns v. Davis, 435 F. App’x 27 (2d Cir. 2011) (adding that appearing in court and holding oneself out to be a lawyer, drafting legal documents, and preparing

legal instruments also constitute the unlawful practice of law). Though the Court does not at this time have sufficient information to conclude that Ms. Rogovin is indeed unlawfully practicing law in this District, it warns her to proceed with great care.

SO ORDERED. Dated: January 2, 2026 New York, New York KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge

Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano, (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano (Craig Molesphini and Elephant Entertainment, Inc. v. Anthony Giordano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related