Kleeberg et al v. Eber et al

Filing 343

ORDER PROVIDING ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON UPCOMING ORAL ARGUMENT: Per ECF No. 342, oral argument is scheduled to take place in the above-captioned action this coming Friday. In order to provide the parties with some guidance as to the scope of the upcomi ng argument, the court notes a set of topics the parties should be prepared to discuss below.The topics/questions to be addressed will include, but may not be limited to: Whether beneficiary consent is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pleaded and whether Defendants did so in light of affirmative defense numbers 1, 3, 4 or 15, or any others that may be applicable; The duties Lester owed to Plaintiffs at the time of the 2012 foreclosure transaction and whether those duties depend o n the ownership structure of EBWLC; Whether the ownership structure of EBWLC materially impacts who could have consented to the 2012 foreclosure transaction; If the Court were to unwind the 2012 foreclosure transaction and create a constructive trust , how that ruling would impact the remaining claims in the case; and Whether the Trust's ownership interest in EBWLC could impact the share distribution ordered by the Surrogate Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 3/1/2021) (nb)

Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 343 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 2

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

3/1/2021

DANIEL KLEEBERG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

16-CV-9517 (LAK) (KHP)
ORDER PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
DETAILS ON UPCOMING ORAL
ARGUMENT

-againstTHE ESTATE OF LESTER EBER, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge:

Per ECF No. 342, oral argument is scheduled to take place in the above-captioned action
this coming Friday. In order to provide the parties with some guidance as to the scope of the
upcoming argument, the court notes a set of topics the parties should be prepared to discuss
below.
The topics/questions to be addressed will include, but may not be limited to:
•

Whether beneficiary consent is an affirmative defense that must be specifically
pleaded and whether Defendants did so in light of affirmative defense numbers 1, 3, 4
or 15, or any others that may be applicable;

•

The duties Lester owed to Plaintiffs at the time of the 2012 foreclosure transaction
and whether those duties depend on the ownership structure of EBWLC;

•

Whether the ownership structure of EBWLC materially impacts who could have
consented to the 2012 foreclosure transaction;

•

If the Court were to unwind the 2012 foreclosure transaction and create a constructive
trust, how that ruling would impact the remaining claims in the case; and

•

Whether the Trust’s ownership interest in EBWLC could impact the share distribution
ordered by the Surrogate Court.

Case 1:16-cv-09517-LAK-KHP Document 343 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 2

SO ORDERED.
DATED:

New York, New York
March 1, 2021
______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

2