Safflane Holdings Ltd. et al v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc.

Filing 105

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolonger from Brian Dunefsky re: Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Court extend Gagosian's time to respond to Cowles' papers to February 24, 2012. Given that Cowles has had notice of these proceedings for many months and chose not to respond until today, we submit that he will suffer no prejudice from this extension. ENDORSEMENT: Gagosian may serve and file its remaining pages by February 24, 2012. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger on 2/9/2012) (js)

[4J 00021000:3

02/0812012 19:17 FAX

withers Bergman

llP

February 8,2012
430 Park Avenue, 10th Floor. New York, New York 10022-3505
Telephone: [phone]

Via Facsimile
The Honorable Michael Dolinger

United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 17D
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Fax: [phone]

~ ,-c> S- (~ ~ A.. f-J lA!1~ -;::.J)

,

t:

,;to ~«,L.:J ~ .b-..

2-C(

'

(

Safflane Holdings Ltd and Robert Wylde v. Gagosian Gallery. Inc;

J

;2.. 0/ )-.

~~~..J~

N~ -6'';1 (,9

~/ t Y

Dear Judge Dolinger:
We write on behalf of our client, Gagosian Gallery, Inc. ("Gagosian"), to request a 14 day extension
of Gagosian's time to respond to papers filed this afternoon by third-party defendant Char]es
Cowles in opposition to (i) Gagosian's Motion for Default Judgment in the Gagosian Gallery, Inc.
v. Cowles proceeding (the "Motion for Default Judgment") and (ii) Gagosian's affidavits
demonstrating its damages in the SajJlane Holdings Ltd and Robert Wylde v. Gagosian Gallery,
Inc. proceeding (the "Safflane Inquest Proceeding").
As your Honor will recall, on January 9, 2012, the Court reset Cowles' deadline to file a response, if
any, to Gagosian's Motion for Default Judgment, to January 26, 2012. In addition, by Order of that
same date, the Court ordered Gagosian to submit affidavits demonstrating the damages it is seeking
in the Saftlane Inquest Proceeding by January 19,2012, and ordered Cowles to submit a response
by January 26, 2012. Despite that Order, Cowles did not file any response to Gagosian's Motion
for Default Judgment.
Gagosian timely submitted its affidavits supporting its claim for damages in the Safflane Inquest
Proceeding and served it papers on Cowles by Federal Express overnight maiL However, after
informing the Court that Federal Express returned Cowles' service copies of the affidavits to us
because they could not be delivered to him, and that we had mailed Cowles another set by First
Class U.S. Mail, your Honor issued an Endorsed Order dated February 1,2012 holding that "[s]ince
Gagosian has served the Safflane papers on Cowles by regular mail, we will allow Mr. Cowles until
Feb. 8,2012 to serve and file responding papers. Ifhe does, Gagosian may reply by Feb. 10,2012."
... ·'···~·~-"1 :~
"

!.:.
~

~

~: .~

Withers Bergman

l~

'."'-"~ :.~'~ t:'~;:·":0~.'q:,p",.~<.:,:~,.,~. '1
. :::~~ .f. Ik,-,-.,..
•

~ •

"

,"

~

"

....

.

.',.
"

"T<

.".

~

.:

.

•

,.,.

".

llP

Greenwich: [phone]
New Haven: [phone]
Withers

LlP

London: [phone]

Geneva: [phone]
Zurich: [phone]
Studio Legale Associato con Withers LU'
Milan; [phone]
VVlthers lti!lllt!:

direct line: [phone]
direct fax: +1 212 B244260

e-mail: [e-mail]
admitted in New Yom

Hong Kong: [phone]
Withers

Sv!

British Virgin Islands: [phone]

www.wi!hersworldwide.com

~ 000310003

02/08/2012 19:17 FAX

The Honorable Michael Dolinger

February 8, 2012

Today, Cowles filed a 17 page memorandum ofIaw and an affidavit. Those papers, however, not
only seek to oppose the affidavits submitted by Gagosian in the Safflane Inquest Proceeding (which
the Endorsed Order allowed), but also purport to oppose Gagosian's Motion for Default Judgment
that was served on Cowles over two months ago (which the Endorsed Order did not permit him to
file).
Cowles' papers raise numerous legal and factual matters that, while meritless, will require Gagosian
to expend substantial time in drafting a response. In addition, two of the three attorneys who are
responsible for this matter are out of the office on vacation this week, making it even more difficult
to submit a reply to Cowles' papers within two days. I
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Court extend Gagosian's time to respond to Cowles'
papers to February 24,2012. Given that Cowles has had notice of these proceedings for many
months and chose not to respond until today, we submit that he will suffer no prejudice from this
extension. 2

~s

v.c:.-o",-"",,",!pvr- ~.~.L

ed
bmitt'<,...4t:.-1'

Brian Dunefsky
cc:

Dean Cho, Esq. (via electronic mail)
Aaron Richard Golub, Esq. (via electronic mail) (counsel for plaintiffs)
Nehemiah S. Glanc, Esq. (via electronic mail) (counsel for plaintiffs)

I Since the Endorsed Order did not provide that Cowles had a right to submit an opposition to Gagosian's
long ago-served Motion for Default Judgment and therefore that part of his submission should be stricken
-- there currently is no deadline for Gagosian to submit a reply to that portion of Cowles' papers.

We sought Cowles' counsel's consent to this request for an extension oftime by placing two telephone
calls to him late this afternoon, but we were unable to speak with him. Given the short time currently
provided for Gagosian's response, we have chosen to write to the Court now rather than wait to potentially
hear back from him.

2