Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Mirvis et al

Filing 454

Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Motion Hearing held on 12/2/2016. Attorneys William Natbony, Daniel S. Marvin, Robert Stern, Andrew Midgett, and Kristy Eagan for Plaintiffs. A ttorney Mark Furman for non-party movant Ruslan Zhuravsky. Attorney Meyer Silber for non-party movants Alexander Boriskin, Lyubov Mirvis, and Tatyana Mirvis (the "Mirvis non-parties"). No appearance for Defendants. The annexed Minute Order sets forth the Court's rulings and the briefing deadlines established. (Tape #10:33-12:01.) (Feldman, Shira)

BEFORE:

PEGGY KUO
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DOCKET NO. 08-CV-4405

DATE:
START TIME:
END TIME:
JUDGE:

12/2/16
10:33 am
12:01 pm
SLT

CASE NAME: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. v. MIRVIS, et al.
CIVIL CONFERENCE
PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE:

Motion Hearing

APPEARANCES: Plaintiffs

William Natbony, Daniel S.
Marvin, Robert Stern, Andrew
Midgett, and Kristy Eagan

Non-party movant Ruslan Zhuravsky

Mark Furman

Non-party movants Alexander
Boriskin, Lyubov Mirvis, Tatyana
Mirvis (the “Mirvis non-parties”).

Meyer Silber

Defendants

No appearance

RULINGS and SCHEDULING:
1. For the reasons stated on the record, the Motions for a Preliminary Injunction [386]
and [387] are granted.
a. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated they will suffer irreparable
harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted. See Pashaian v. Eccleston Props,
Ltd., 88 F.3d 77, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1996); Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc. v. VCG Special
Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35-38 (2d Cir. 2010).
b. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the merits; in the alternative, the Court finds that there are sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and,
weighing the hardships, the Court finds that the hardships tip decidedly
toward Plaintiffs. See id.; Pashaian, 88 F.3d at 86-87.
2. In granting [386] and [387], the Court finds that Plaintiffs need not post a bond,
because movants have failed to demonstrate that there is a likely harm proximately
caused by the injunctions that is not speculative. See Corning Inc. v. PicVue Elecs., Ltd.,
365 F.3d 156, 158 (2d Cir. 2004); Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Distajo, 107 F.3d 126, 136 (2d
Cir. 1997); Interlink Int’l Fin. Svcs., Inc. v. Block, 145 F. Supp. 2d 312, 315 (S.D.N.Y.
2001).

3. The request by non-party Zhuravsky to file a reply on [349] is granted, nunc pro tunc.
The reply is due by December 16, 2016.
4. The request by the Mirvis non-parties to file a reply on [350] is granted, nunc pro tunc.
The reply is due by December 16, 2016.
5. The request by the Mirvis non-parties to file a supplemental affidavit of Tatyana Mirvis
is granted. The affidavit is due by December 16, 2016. Any response is due by
January 6, 2017.
6. Plaintiffs are to file a proposed Preliminary Injunction Order for each of [386] and
[387].
7. Once the Court determines the Motions for Protective Order/to Quash [349] and
[350], the parties will file, to be so-ordered, a proposed briefing schedule on the
anticipated Motion for Turnover.