Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. De C.V. v. AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V.

2024 NY Slip Op 31540(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. De C.V. v AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. 2024 NY Slip Op 31540(U) April 30, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 652411/2022 Judge: Andrea Masley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 652411/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X GRUPO SALINAS TELECOM, S.A. DE C.V. and GRUPO INDEX NO. 652411/2022 SALINAS TELECOM II, S.A. DE C.V.,

Plaintiffs, MOTION DATE

-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 AT&T MOBILITY HOLDINGS B.V., and NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS .

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

In motion 002, defendants AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. and New Cingular

Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T) move pursuant to the court’s inherent authority under

CPLR 3017(a), for an order directing plaintiff Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. DE C.V.,

Grupo Salinas Telecom II, S.A. DE C.V. (Grupo) to post security in the form of a bond in

the amount of $7 million to secure damages AT&T seeks in its counterclaims in this

action.

The court has “inherent authority” to impose a bond “to ensure that litigation

proceed[s] efficiently and that the parties adhere[] to their obligation of litigating in good

faith.” (Largo 613 Baltic Street Partners LLC v Stern, 210 AD3d 430 [1st Dept 2022].)

Defendants’ motion is denied because the circumstances here do not in any way

approach the severity of the situation in Largo 613 Baltic Street Partners LLC v Stern,

652411/2022 GRUPO SALINAS TELECOM, S.A. DE C.V. ET AL vs. AT&T MOBILITY HOLDINGS Page 1 of 4 B.V. ET AL Motion No. 002

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 652411/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

210 AD3d 430 [1st Dept 2022]1, where defendant allegedly forged signatures, removed

$2 million from the LLC in which Largo the plaintiff owned 49%, and filed bankruptcies

allegedly for procedural posturing reasons, without informing the court, and then settled

by allegedly conflicted counsel. (NYSCEF 171, March 15, 2022, tr 27:8-24, 36:3-4,

34:13-25 in Largo v Stern, 652986/2020.) Defendant refused to produce phone records

in response to plaintiff’s discovery demands in Largo. (Id. tr 9:19-25; 10:1-11:4.) All of

defendant’s and their attorney’s efforts had the effect of delaying the case for over a

year and increasing plaintiff’s costs. (Id. tr 4:20-25, 5:1-6, 8:12-19, 20:19-25, 35:1-12.)

While Justice Ostrager denied an attachment, sanctions, and attorneys’ fees, he

granted a bond to secure the anticipated attorneys’ fees “based on all the

circumstances prevailing for the conduct of the case, including the alleged improper

conduct of the Kasowitz firm and the alleged improper bankruptcy filing, the Court

directs defendants to post a $1 million bond within ten business days.” (NYSCEF 162,

March 15, 2022 Decision in Largo v Stern, 652986/2020, aff’d 210 AD3d 430, 431 (1st

Dept 2022.) On the record, Justice Ostrager explained “[t]he bond is for a whole

cacophony of alleged and apparent sins.” (NYSCEF 171, March 15, 2022, tr 37:1-2 in

Largo v Stern, 652986/2020.)

Here, we have Grupo refusing to pay the judgment in another case before this

1 See also State v Barone, 74 NY2d 332, 338 (1989) (“The disdain for numerous DEC

warnings, the violation of the temporary restraining order, the subsequent use of industrial waste as landfill cover in direct violation of the interim court order, and the adjudicated “stonewalling” of the investigation all combined to support the court's dubiety that defendants would fulfill their decreed obligations. The imposition of a bond as security in these extraordinary circumstances was, at the very least, not an abusive exercise of the court's power.”) 652411/2022 GRUPO SALINAS TELECOM, S.A. DE C.V. ET AL vs. AT&T MOBILITY HOLDINGS Page 2 of 4 B.V. ET AL Motion No. 002

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 652411/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

court with the same parties (650330/2020)2 and a history of refusing to pay judgments

and making public statements espousing its pride for failing to pay its judgments. (See,

e.g., NYSCEF 55, February 10, 2021 Infobae article wherein Grupo’s chairman

declared he “won’t pay even a radish’s worth” after a Grupo affiliate was found to owe

the SAT over $200 million in tax liability; NYSCEF 56, February 25, 2022 El

Contribuyente article wherein Grupo’s chairman compared the SAT to a picture of a

mouse in princess costume; NYSCEF 12 Counterclaims ¶¶ 30-57 delineating Grupo’s

efforts within the Mexican Court system to avoid payment of Unefon’s tax liability,

notwithstanding repeated rulings by Mexico’s Supreme Court upholding that liability).

After a bench trial, this court rendered a judgment for over $20 million against Grupo.

(NYSCEF 577, November 29, 2023 Judgment.) Grupo has appealed the trial decision.

(NYSCEF 579, Notice of Appeal.) Grupo insists on putting its adversaries through the

judgment enforcement process. (See Enforcement of Judgments § 66:1. Scope note,

4B N.Y. Prac., Com. Litig. in New York State Courts § 66:1 [5th ed.].) As to the appeal,

under CPLR 5519, Grupo has the option of paying a bond or insisting that AT&T

engage in the judgment enforcement process. To be clear, this court does not condone

Grupo’s failure to pay the judgment in the AT&T action (650330/2020). However, it is

premature to secure Grupo’s payment of AT&T’s damages in this action where the

parties have just completed document production.

2 AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v. Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. de C.V. et al. 652411/2022 GRUPO SALINAS TELECOM, S.A. DE C.V. ET AL vs. AT&T MOBILITY HOLDINGS Page 3 of 4 B.V. ET AL Motion No. 002

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 652411/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 78 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/30/2024

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendants’ motion 002 is denied.

4/30/2024 DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

652411/2022 GRUPO SALINAS TELECOM, S.A. DE C.V. ET AL vs. AT&T MOBILITY HOLDINGS Page 4 of 4 B.V. ET AL Motion No. 002

4 of 4 [* 4]