HGM v. JGV Apparel Group

S.D. New York

HGM v. JGV Apparel Group

DecidedApril 10, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-07184

StatusUnknown

This text of HGM v. JGV Apparel Group (HGM v. JGV Apparel Group) 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

HGM v. JGV Apparel Group, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HGM, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-7184 (ALC)

JGV APPAREL GROUP, et al., ORDER Defendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters regarding Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. The Amended Complaint pleads that Plaintiff seeks damages for its “lost business opportunity and profits as a result of defendants’ breach of contract” as well as Plaintiff’s legal fees “in the amount of 9% from the due date of July 7th, 2021, and its litigation’s costs.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 19 ¶ 9.) Defendants argue that this is “purely speculative” and not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the amount in controversy. (ECF No. 19 at 2.) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have cited any caselaw supporting their positions. Defendants’ motion for a pre-motion conference at ECF No. 20 is GRANTED. The Court will hold the pre-motion conference on April 25, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. All parties shall appear and should contact the Court at 1-888-363-4749 (access code: 3768660). At the conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss the relevant law and issues, including: • Shelton v. Sethna, No. 10-CV-4128 (TPG), 2012 WL 1022895, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012) (“Under New York law, consequential damages that are reasonably foreseeable to the contracting parties can be recovered in a breach of contract action.”)

• Gasery v. Kalakuta Sunrise, LLC, 422 F. Supp. 3d 807, 818 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“attorney’s fees can be counted towards satisfying the amount-in-controversy threshold only if they are recoverable as a matter of right pursuant to statute or contract.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). © Bracken vy. MH Pillars Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 258, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“a plaintiff's allegation regarding the amount in controversy may be overcome by a finding ‘to a legal certainty’ that the amount recoverable does not exceed the jurisdictional minimum amount.”’) e Kimmy. KCC Trading, Inc., 449 Fed. Appx. 85, 85-86 (2d Cir. 2012) (an award of attorneys’ fees may be used to meet the statutory jurisdictional threshold “only if they are recoverable as a matter of right pursuant to statute or contract.”’) Additionally, Plaintiff is directed to file a letter attaching the contract at issue in this litigation by April 18, 2023. SO ORDERED [Ards A (as Dated: April 10, 2023 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. 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 HGM, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-7184 (ALC)

JGV APPAREL GROUP, et al., ORDER Defendants. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the parties’ letters regarding Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. The Amended Complaint pleads that Plaintiff seeks damages for its “lost business opportunity and profits as a result of defendants’ breach of contract” as well as Plaintiff’s legal fees “in the amount of 9% from the due date of July 7th, 2021, and its litigation’s costs.” (Am. Compl., ECF No. 19 ¶ 9.) Defendants argue that this is “purely speculative” and not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the amount in controversy. (ECF No. 19 at 2.) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have cited any caselaw supporting their positions. Defendants’ motion for a pre-motion conference at ECF No. 20 is GRANTED. The Court will hold the pre-motion conference on April 25, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. All parties shall appear and should contact the Court at 1-888-363-4749 (access code: 3768660). At the conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss the relevant law and issues, including: • Shelton v. Sethna, No. 10-CV-4128 (TPG), 2012 WL 1022895, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012) (“Under New York law, consequential damages that are reasonably foreseeable to the contracting parties can be recovered in a breach of contract action.”)

• Gasery v. Kalakuta Sunrise, LLC, 422 F. Supp. 3d 807, 818 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“attorney’s fees can be counted towards satisfying the amount-in-controversy threshold only if they are recoverable as a matter of right pursuant to statute or contract.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). © Bracken vy. MH Pillars Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 258, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“a plaintiff's allegation regarding the amount in controversy may be overcome by a finding ‘to a legal certainty’ that the amount recoverable does not exceed the jurisdictional minimum amount.”’) e Kimmy. KCC Trading, Inc., 449 Fed. Appx. 85, 85-86 (2d Cir. 2012) (an award of attorneys’ fees may be used to meet the statutory jurisdictional threshold “only if they are recoverable as a matter of right pursuant to statute or contract.”’) Additionally, Plaintiff is directed to file a letter attaching the contract at issue in this litigation by April 18, 2023. SO ORDERED [Ards A (as Dated: April 10, 2023 New York, New York ANDREW L. CARTER, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HGM v. JGV Apparel Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hgm-v-jgv-apparel-group-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack