Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc. et al

Filing 427

ORDER granting 426 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The parties' letter-motion requesting adjournment of the settlement conference scheduled for February 3, 2023 (ECF No. 426) is GRANTED, and the settlement conference is ADJOURNED sine die. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 426. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 1/20/23) (yv)

January 20, 2023

The parties' letter-motion requesting adjournment of the settlement
conference scheduled for February 3, 2023 (ECF No. 426) is
GRANTED, and the settlement conference is ADJOURNED sine die.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 426.

BY ECF
Hon. Sarah L. Cave
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1670
New York, NY 10007

SO ORDERED 01/20/23

Re: Coventry Capital US LLC v. EEA Life Settlements, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 7417-JLR-SLC
Dear Judge Cave:
The parties write jointly to request an adjournment of the settlement conference currently
scheduled for February 3, 2023 until after Judge Rochon rules on the parties’ anticipated summary
judgment motions.
The parties sincerely appreciate the Court’s willingness to prepare for and conduct a
settlement conference. However, we are concerned that mediation right now would not be fruitful.
The principal parties have been engaged over the course of the last few months in settlement
negotiations. Despite those efforts, the parties’ positions on settlement remain orders of magnitude
apart. That substantial difference derives, at least in part, from the parties’ differing views of
potentially dispositive issues in the case that may be resolved on summary judgment.
I.

Defendants’ Position

Specifically, as Defendant EEA Life Settlements, Inc. previously described in its motion
for expedited consideration of summary judgment, it believes that it has strong legal arguments
for dismissal of Plaintiff ’s primary damages claim for lost profits. See Dkt. 351. 1 Lost-profit
damages are unavailable as a matter of law because the four-page letter of intent (“LOI”) that the
parties entered into was a Type II preliminary agreement, and the parties never agreed to sale terms
or performed any portion of the sale. Id. Judge Marrero denied that motion without prejudice to
renewal after expert discovery. Dkt. 357. The lost-profit damages Plaintiff asserts, and the
corresponding pre-judgment interest, represent tens of millions of dollars. That is substantially all
of Plaintiff ’s alleged damages.
The Individual Defendants also intend to move for summary judgment on grounds, among
others, of lack of personal jurisdiction. The Individual Defendants are not citizens or residents of
the United States, do not own any real or personal property in New York, have no bank accounts
in New York, have never had any offices, telephone listings or mailing addresses in New York,
have never visited or directed any communications to New York with respect to the LOI or any
transaction contemplated by it, and neither the LOI nor any transaction contemplated by it was
Defendants Vincent Piscaer and Hiren Patel (the “Individual Defendants”) joined that motion for expedited
consideration of summary judgment. See Dkt. 355.
1

Hon. Sarah L. Cave

-2-

January 20, 2023

performed in New York. Plaintiff has alleged fraud against the Individual Defendants, who were
mere employees earning about £90,000 per year, in connection with how certain negotiations of
the LOI were handled. Mr. Patel had no material involvement in the potential transaction and Mr.
Piscaer was simply doing his job by engaging in a zealous negotiation that did not lead to a formal
agreement. Their lives have been hampered for more than five years by these charges, likely
brought for aggravation purposes, and they are confident that they will prevail on summary
judgment. The Individual Defendants have not been party to any material settlement discussions
with Plaintiff. Nevertheless, given the representations made by the principal parties, the Individual
Defendants have no objection to the settlement conference being adjourned.
II.

Plaintiff ’s Position

Plaintiff Coventry Capital US LLC (“Coventry”) concurs in the result only. At this time,
Coventry agrees that a settlement conference will not be productive because Defendants have made
clear that their valuation of this case differs by orders of magnitude from Coventry’s. That
disconnect arises for a few reasons. First, as set forth in Plaintiff’s opposition to EEA, Inc.’s
request for early, partial summary judgment on the damages issue it discusses above, EEA, Inc. is
incorrect about the legal issue it believes forecloses one of Coventry’s multiple damages theories.
See Dkt. No. 356 at 1–2. In fact, EEA, Inc.’s prior discussion of the topic omitted entire lines of
authority that recognize Coventry’s damages claim, and the cases EEA, Inc. cited do not support
its position. Id. Second, the Individual Defendants’ arguments about personal jurisdiction lack
merit, just as they were when Judge Marrero denied the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss
on that basis. See Dkt. No. 43 at 6–7. Discovery has only confirmed that the Individual Defendants
are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. Indeed, Coventry will move for summary
judgment on that issue because there is no evidence based on which a jury could find otherwise.
Third, the discovery record has confirmed that Coventry has other strong summary judgment
arguments that we expect will narrow the issues for trial in its favor, including as to liability and
against EEA, Inc.’s counterclaim. For these reasons, Coventry agrees that a settlement conference
after Judge Rochon resolves the parties’ forthcoming summary-judgment motions will be more
productive.
*

*

*

The parties therefore propose that the settlement conference be adjourned until after Judge
Rochon rules on the parties’ anticipated motions for summary judgment. We do so out of respect
for the Court’s time, and a desire to make the settlement conference as productive as possible. 2

2
Should the Court wish to proceed with the settlement conference before summary judgment, Defendant EEA Life
Settlements, Inc. has indicated that it is no longer available for the scheduled February 3, 2023 date. The parties
followed the instructions in ¶ 9 of the Court’s Standing Order Applicable to Settlement Conferences to request an
alternative date for that conference and telephoned chambers on January 19, 2023. The Court’s chambers proposed
February 28, 2023 or March 1, 2023, but Plaintiff ’s counsel is not available on those dates. Due to an upcoming trial,
Plaintiff ’s counsel would propose a date in early April.

Hon. Sarah L. Cave

-3-

January 20, 2023
Respectfully yours,
Steven F. Molo
Mark J. Hyland
Kenneth J. Brown