Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC v. Gangl

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 22, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-09036
StatusUnknown

This text of Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC v. Gangl (Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC v. Gangl) 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
Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC v. Gangl, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

David E. Gottlieb dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC and Philip Neuman shall file a response no later than April 25, 2025. April 21, 2025 SO ORDERED. VIA ECF The Honorable Ronnie Abrams Hon. Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge April 22. 2025 Southern District of New York PIN <4 Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square, Room 1506 New York, NY 10007 Re: — Gangl v. Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC et al.; No. 1:24-cv-09371 (RA) ex. rel. Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC v. Gangl; No. 1:24-cv-09036 (RA) Dear Judge Abrams, We represent Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Jeffrey Gangl (“Gang”) in connection with his claims against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants Fractional Ownership Holdings LLC (“Fractional”) and Philip Neuman! (“Neuman”) and write to respectfully request that the Court issue an Order to compel non-party Colin Conner (“Conner’’) to comply with Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum. Fractional asserts that Mr. Gangl was terminated “with cause” due to poor performance and breached his employment agreement by failing to work full time and sufficiently perform his job duties. In contrast, Mr. Gangl claims that within days of telling Mr. Neuman that the excessive workload foisted upon him was challenging given his role as the parent and caregiver of an ill child, Mr. Neuman decided to part ways with Mr. Gangl without cause. Thereafter, Fractional falsely stated that Mr. Gangl was terminated “with cause” in an effort to avoid the compensation payments owed to Mr. Gangl pursuant to his employment agreement. Mr. Connor is one of the important witnesses in this action—he is identified as a relevant witness in both parties’ Rule 26(a) disclosures and further identified by Fractional in response to certain of Gangl’s specific interrogatories. Moreover, in advance of a pre-litigation mediation, Fractional obtained a signed witness declaration from Mr. Connor regarding certain aspects of the disputes in this litigation. As such, on March 25, 2025, Mr. Gangl served a subpoena on Mr. Connor for documentation related to the allegations in the Complaint, the interrelationship between Mr. Neuman’s personal businesses and Fractional and communications regarding the witness declaration mentioned above. See Ex. A. Mr. Connor has not responded as required by Rule 45(d)(2)(B). Nonetheless, to avoid unnecessary motion practice, Mr. Gangl sent

| Mr. Neuman is a Counter-Defendant in Mr. Gangl’s complaint but not a Plaintiff in Fractional’s complaint.

85 FIFTH AVENUE | NEW YORK, NY 10003 | 212 2576800 | WIGDORLAW.COM

Hon. Ronnie Abrams April 21, 2025 Page 2

correspondence to Mr. Connor in an attempt to secure compliance with the subpoena. See Ex. B. However, Mr. Connor failed to respond to the undersigned’s letter. A party may issue a subpoena for information that “is relevant and material to the allegations and claims at issue in the proceedings.” Vale v. Great Neck Water Pollution Control Dist., No. 14 Civ. 4229 (ADS)(AYS), 2016 WL 1072639, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2016) (quoting Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd., No. 03 Civ. 1382, 2003 WL 23018833, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003)). “Relevance ‘has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on any issue that is or may be in the case.’” Id. (quoting Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)). Here, Mr. Connor is relevant witness who 1s likely in possession of relevant documents and information. Yet, he did not respond to the subpoena. Mr. Gangl respectfully requests that the Court compel Mr. Connor to simply respond to the subpoena and provide responsive documents. We thank Your Honor for the Court’s time and consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted,

David E. Gottlieb

Exhibit A AO 88B (Rev. 12/13) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of New York JEFFREY GANGL, ) Plaintiff ) Vv. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-09371 (RA) FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP HOLDINGS, ) LLC and PHILIP NEUMAN. ) Defendant ) SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION To: COLIN CONNER (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed) of Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: See attached Appendix A.

Place: wigdor LLP, 85 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor, New York, NY _ Date and Time: 10003 or electronically via email to . dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com 04/07/2025 5:00 pm 1 Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or other property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.

The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached — Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance; Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so. Date: 03/24/2025 CLERK OF COURT □□ & Legge Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Jeffery Gangl , who issues or requests this subpoena, are: David E. Gottlieb, Esq. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Wigdor LLP, 85 Fifth Ave. NY, NY 10003, (212) 257-6800 Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena A notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).

(c)Place of Compliance. (ii)disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s (1)For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition.A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party. person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C)Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances (A)within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or regularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified (B)within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party: transacts business in person, if the person (i)shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be (i)is a party or a party’s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and (ii)is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii)ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated. expense. (e)Duties in Responding to a Subpoena. (2)For Other Discovery.A subpoena may command: (A)production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1)Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information.These tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information: (B)inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.

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

Related

Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders
437 U.S. 340 (Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fractional Ownership Holdings, LLC v. Gangl, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fractional-ownership-holdings-llc-v-gangl-nysd-2025.