HONEEDEW INVESTING LLC v. JOSE ABADI

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 1:19-cv-08951
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X

HONEEDEW INVESTING LLC,

Plaintiff, 19-CV-08951 (JPC) (VF)

-against- ORDER

JOSE ABADI,

Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------X

VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of its motion for default judgment on March 7, 2025 (ECF No. 120) as well as its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 11, 2025 (see ECF No. 142). Plaintiff requests $278,039.69 in damages for Count IV of its Complaint, based on transfers made from Decision Boundaries “to Jose [Abadi], funds that otherwise could have been subject to execution by Plaintiff.” ECF No. 142 at ¶ 27; see also ECF No. 120 at ¶ 36 (“Jose Abadi received not less than $278,039,69 through his participation in the Decision Boundaries scheme in slightly over one year.”). However, in the financial documents provided by Plaintiff at ECF No. 121, it is not clear what wire transfers were included in the calculation of $278,039.69. Additionally, Plaintiff states that under Count V, tortious interference with collection of a judgment, Plaintiff is entitled damages of $858,739.69, which is the total of the damages Plaintiff seeks for Counts II and IV. ECF No. 142 at ¶ 29. However, case law suggests that the damages for tortious interference with collection of a judgment are the amount of additional expense Plaintiff had to incur to recover the judgment, and not the amount that was fraudulently conveyed. See Ritter v. Klisivitch, No. 06-CV-5511 (DRH) (WDW), 2008 WL 2967627, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2008) (“The amount of the judgment is not the measure of the damages; it is rather the loss or expense caused by the interference [although] [c]onceivably, this could embrace the judgment itself.”) (quoting James v. Powell, 25 A.D.2d 1 (1st Dep’t 1966), rev’d on other grounds, 19 N.Y.2d 249 (1967)) (alterations in original). Plaintiff is directed to file a letter explaining its calculation of $278,039,69, allegedly received by Jose Abadi from Decision Boundaries, and providing case law support for its damages claim for tortious interference with collection of a judgment. Plaintiff is directed to file its letter by May 12, 2026. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York April 27, 2026

VALERIE Paes United States Magistrate Judge