SGM Holdings LLC et al v. Andrews et al

Filing 189

ORDER denying 138 Letter Motion for Conference re: 138 LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 123 Order on Motion for Oral Argument,, seeking clarification of scope of stay and bifurcation in Order dated October 26, 2023 (ECF No. 123) addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Dan J. Schulman dated D, 182 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from James Blount dated April 11, 2024., 185 MOTION for Summar y Judgment .; denying 182 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; denying 185 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter was reassigned to this Court from the Honorable Paul A. Crotty on April 15, 2024. The same day, all plaintiffs exc ept pro se plaintiff James T. Hughes Jr. ("Hughes") filed a letter on behalf of themselves and Hughes bringing certain issues to the Court's attention. (See Dkt. No. 186 [hereinafter "Pl. Ltr."].) The defendants responded in two letters filed the next day. (See Dkt. Nos. 187-88.) No further summary judgment briefing in this matter will be considered absent a showing of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Accordingly, a trial is scheduled in this matter fo r July 29 through August 1. The Court will reserve decision on whether to refer the question of damages to Judge Cave for a post-trial hearing or inquest. The Clerk of Court is hereby respectfully directed to terminate all pending motions in this matter. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/17/2024) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

4/17/24

SGM HOLDINGS LLC, et al.,

15 Civ. 8142 (VM)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

- against A. JAMES ANDREWS, RICHARD GAINES, and
KARL SCHLEDWITZ,
Defendants.
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

This

matter

was

reassigned

to

this

Court

from

the

Honorable Paul A. Crotty on April 15, 2024. The same day, all
plaintiffs

except

pro

se

plaintiff

James

T.

Hughes

Jr.

(“Hughes”) filed a letter on behalf of themselves and Hughes
bringing certain issues to the Court’s attention. (See Dkt.
No. 186 [hereinafter “Pl. Ltr.”].) The defendants responded
in two letters filed the next day. (See Dkt. Nos. 187–88.)
Initially, the Court notes that on September 25, 2023,
Judge Crotty denied summary judgment motions filed by the
defendants and by plaintiff Charles Stephenson (“Stephenson”)
on his own behalf and as assignee of all claims of former
plaintiffs SGM Holdings LLC, Syndicated Geo Management Corp.,
Richard Featherly, and Premier Natural Resources LLC. (See
Dkt. No. 118.) Hughes then appeared and advised Magistrate
Judge Sarah Cave that plaintiff Lawrence Field (“Field”)

1

assigned

to

Hughes

all

of

Field’s

claims

against

the

defendants in this action. (See Dkt. Nos. 146–47.) Hughes
also sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment. (See
Dkt. No. 148.) Judge Cave denied such leave on January 31,
2024, without prejudice to Hughes’s right to renew his request
to move for summary judgment following the Court’s resolution
of certain other matters before it. (See Dkt. No. 151.) Judge
Cave resolved those matters on February 28, 2024. (See Dkt.
No. 168.) Hughes, who is an attorney (see Dkt. No. 147), has
not since then renewed his request for leave to file a summary
judgment motion, and on March 15 he filed a letter asking the
Court to set a conference “to discuss the entry of an order
setting dates for the exchange of trial exhibits; filing
motions in limine; and filing the final pre-trial order.”
(Dkt. No. 174.)
The Court now turns to the issues pending before it.
First, pursuant to Judge Crotty’s Individual Practices and
before this matter was reassigned, the defendants moved for
leave to file additional motions for summary judgment. (See
Dkt. Nos. 181–82.) Defendant Karl Schledwitz acknowledges
that an argument similar to the one he now seeks to raise was
already raised during the prior summary judgment proceedings
and

rejected

by

Judge

Crotty.

(See

Dkt.

No.

181.)

And

defendants A. James Andrews (“Andrews”) and Richard Gaines
2

(“Gaines”) do not explain why a second summary judgment motion
is necessary beyond stating that Judge Crotty “refin[ed] the
issues” after the first round of summary judgment briefing.
(Dkt. No. 182.) The Court thus declines to exercise its
discretion to consider successive summary judgment motions.
See Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. v. Dick Corp., 219 F.R.D.
552, 554 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (stating successive summary judgment
motions are disfavored). 1
Second,

plaintiff

Stephenson

states

that

Hughes’s

request for leave to file a motion for summary judgment
remains pending. (See Pl. Ltr. at 4.) This statement is
inaccurate. As detailed above, Hughes never renewed that
request, 2 and the Court finds that his subsequent request for
a conference regarding trial matters (despite the lack of a
trial date) may have constituted a forfeiture of any right to
renew. No further summary judgment briefing in this matter

In spite of Judge Crotty’s Individual Practices requiring a pre-motion
conference with the Court prior to the filing of any motion for summary
judgment, defendants Andrews and Gaines actually filed for summary
judgment absent such a conference out of “an abundance of caution . . .
so there is no question that the motion is timely on the record.” (Dkt.
No. 184; see Dkt. No. 185.) This motion appears not to be properly before
the Court, and the Court for the reasons previously given declines to
consider it in any case.
1

All plaintiffs except Hughes submitted a letter (reviewed and approved
by Hughes) to the Court on March 25 stating that Hughes’s request to move
for summary judgment remained outstanding, but this statement was
inaccurate for the reasons discussed above and was not sufficiently clear
(and was not sufficiently attributed to Hughes) to constitute a renewal
of the request.

2

3

will be considered absent a showing of extraordinary and
compelling circumstances.
Third, plaintiffs request that the Court set a trial for
the latter half of July and refer the issue of damages for a
post-trial hearing or inquest before Judge Cave. (Pl. Ltr. at
2–4.) In their subsequent letters to the Court, Defendants do
not express objection to the scheduling of a trial in late
July.

Accordingly, a trial is scheduled in this matter for

July 29 through August 1. The Court will reserve decision on
whether to refer the question of damages to Judge Cave for a
post-trial hearing or inquest.
Fourth, the plaintiffs other than Hughes, apparently
writing with the consent of Hughes (see id. at 1), state that
the Court “has not ruled on whether Mr. Hughes should be a
party to the trial; Mr. Hughes has advised the Court that he
agrees to be bound . . . by the results of the trial.” (Id.
at 3.) The parties are directed to address this issue in their
pretrial

submissions,

which

pursuant

to

this

Court’s

Individual Practices are due 30 days prior to trial. The
parties

are

directed

to

review

the

Court’s

Individual

Practices in any event.
The Clerk of Court is hereby respectfully directed to
terminate all pending motions in this matter.

4

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

17 April 2024
New York, New York

5