Odeon Capital Group LLC v. AEON Biopharma, Inc.
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 31088(U) (Odeon Capital Group LLC v. AEON Biopharma, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Odeon Capital Group LLC v AEON Biopharma, Inc. 2024 NY Slip Op 31088(U) April 1, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 654547/2023 Judge: Melissa A. Crane 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. 654547/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MELISSA A. CRANE PART 60M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 654547/2023 ODEON CAPITAL GROUP LLC, MOTION DATE N/A Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 - V -
AEON BIOPHARMA, INC.,FORMERL Y KNOWN AS PRIVETERRA ACQUISITION CORP., CONTINENTAL DECISION + ORDER ON STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY MOTION
Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24,25,26 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS
Upon the foregoing documents, it is
This entire case and every cause of action involve plaintiff trying to recover for its failure
to receive its "promised contractual fee" for serving as underwriter to a "Business Combination"
via a SPAC (a special purpose entity) in the medical technology sector. Plaintiff does not assert
any unique damages attributable to the alleged commission of a tort in its Complaint. Rather, it
seeks contract damages of $1,255,800 for each of its claims (see complaint page 25).
Plaintiff has pled a decent breach of contract claim. Defendants have apparently
recognized this, because they have not moved to dismiss the claims for breach of contract.
However, for the reasons stated on the record of April 1, 2024, the court dismisses all
other causes of action against defendant AEON, because each of them merely duplicate the
breach of contract claim. In addition to asking for the same damages, these other causes of
action simply do not add anything beyond what the claim for breach of contract asserts. For
654547/2023 ODE ON CAPITAL GROUP LLC vs. AEON BIOPHARMA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN Page 1 of4 AS PRIVETERRA ACQUISITION CORP. ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 654547/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
example, the cause of action for conversion (Count II) merely seeks a vindication of plaintiffs
contractual rights.
Further, Count III, for tortious interference with the Trust Agreement, duplicates breach
of contract concerning the Underwriting Agreement, because, as plaintiffs counsel conceded on
the record, the way plaintiff was to be paid under the Underwriting Agreement was through the
Trust Agreement. Thus, by allegedly "instructing Continental to distribute the entire amount
held in the Trust Account without paying Odeon its deferred underwriting fee," plaintiff has only
described the means by which defendants breached the contract. Hence, this claim duplicates the
cause of action for breach of contract. In addition, Count III is insufficient because it does not
allege sufficiently that the breach would not have occurred but for AEON's conduct (see
Eisenberg v. Weisbecker, 190 A.D.3d 549, 550 (1 st Dep't 2021).
Count IV for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing also duplicates the
claim for breach of contract. Although plaintiff alludes to this claim as a tort (it isn't), this
characterization in no way describes a situation where plaintiff was deprived of its bargain even
though the contract was not technically breached. This type of deprivation without breach is the
essence of a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ( see
Carovillano v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., _Fsupp3d _, 2024 WL 450040, at *12 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6,
2024][ "[t]he implied covenant is "breached when a party acts in a manner that, although not
expressly forbidden by any contractual provision, would deprive the other party of the right to
receive the benefits under their agreement" [citations omitted]]). Thus, "[w]here a good faith
claim arises from the same facts and seeks the same damages as a breach of contract claim, it
should be dismissed" (Mill Fin., LLC v. Gillett, 122 A.D.3d 98, 104 [1st Dep't 2014]. Here, all
we have is a synonym for breach of contract. Accordingly, and also for the reasons discussed on
654547/2023 ODE ON CAPITAL GROUP LLC vs. AEON BIOPHARMA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN Page 2 of 4 AS PRIVETERRA ACQUISITION CORP. ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 654547/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
the record, the court dismisses Count IV for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
Count V for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty suffers from the same problems
as the tortious interference claim. Namely, this cause of action merely describes how AEON
breached the contract. The allegations concerning substantial assistance are also insufficient.
Accordingly, the court dismisses this Count.
As plaintiff concedes, there is no basis to award punitive damages on the claim for breach
of contract alone (see Eisenberg v. Weisbecker, 190 A.D.3d 549, 550, [1 st Dep't 2021] ["Plaintiff
is not entitled to punitive damages on his contract claim because the complaint does not allege
that the breach was associated with outrageous conduct that was part of a pattern directed at the
public generally"]). However, even were a tort claim to survive, punitive damages would not be
appropriate (see Seymour v. Hovnanian, 211 A.D.3d 549, 557 [!81 Dep't 2022 [defendant's
"conduct does not rise to the level of wanton disregard of plaintiffs' property rights so as to
warrant punitive damages"]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT AEON's motion to dismiss Counts II-V of the complaint as well as
any demand for punitive damages is granted without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED THAT Count I is severed and shall continue; and it is further
654547/2023 ODE ON CAPITAL GROUP LLC vs. AEON BIOPHARMA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN Page 3 of 4 AS PRIVETERRA ACQUISITION CORP. ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 654547/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024
ORDERED THAT should the parties desire mediation, they should contact the part by
email: SFC-Part60@nycourts.gov.
4E66AD6ABE2~0BF7EA
4/1/2024 DATE MELISSA A. CRANE, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
654547/2023 ODEON CAPITAL GROUP LLC vs. AEON BIOPHARMA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN Page4 of 4 AS PRIVETERRA ACQUISITION CORP. ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 4] 4 of 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 31088(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odeon-capital-group-llc-v-aeon-biopharma-inc-nysupctnewyork-2024.