Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp v. Daniloff

Filing 90

ORDER: Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants request for a premotion conference in advance of moving for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 85) is DENIED, and it is further ORDERED that within twenty days of the entry of this Order the parties shall submit a timeline for trial in August 2022 or thereafter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 3/30/2022) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

3/30/
3/ /2022
3/30/2022
/

BLOOMFIELD INVESTMENT RESOURCES CORP.,
Plaintiff,

17 Civ. 4181 (VM)
ORDER

- against ELLIOT DANILOFF,
Defendant.

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
On October 18, 2021, defendant Elliot Daniloff (“Daniloff”)
submitted a letter requesting a premotion conference and setting
forth the grounds for a proposed motion for summary judgment. (See
“Daniloff Letter,” Dkt. No. 85.) On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff
Bloomfield Investment Resources Corp. (“Bloomfield”) submitted a
letter opposing Daniloff’s request. (See “Opposition,” Dkt. No.
86.) Daniloff also submitted a reply letter further explaining why
he believes summary judgment should be granted. (See “Reply,” Dkt.
No. 87.)
Upon review of the parties’ premotion letter exchange, the
Court is not persuaded that Defendant’s request to schedule a
premotion conference is warranted. Summary judgment practice on
Bloomfield’s claims at this point would be unproductive and an
uneconomical use of judicial resources as the parties’ letter
exchange indicates that there are genuine disputes over several
material facts that should be resolved by a jury. Most notably,

1

among other issues, there are unresolved disputes regarding (1)
whether the parties ever entered into the Original Agreement
(compare Opposition at 2 n.3 with Reply at 2); (2) the terms of
that agreement (which must be known before the Court can determine
if the agreement is collateral to or conflicts with the later
Subscription Agreement); and (3) whether the parties mutually
intended to be bound by the November 26 Agreement. (See Opposition
at 2–3; Reply at 3.) These key factual questions preclude summary
judgment

on

the

contractual

claims.

And

because

“Plaintiff’s

fraud, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment claims . . .
hinge

on

the

viability

of

Plaintiff’s

‘Original

Agreement,’”

summary judgment cannot be granted on those claims at this time.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ request for a premotion conference
in advance of moving for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 85) is DENIED,
and it is further
ORDERED that within twenty days of the entry of this Order
the parties shall submit a timeline for trial in August 2022 or
thereafter.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 30, 2022
New York, New York

_________________________
______________
_________________________
_
_ _____
Victor Marrer
Victor Marrero
Victor Marrero
ict
tor
U.S.D.J.
U.S.D.J.
U.S.D.J.

2