Prout v. Vladeck et al
Filing
96
OPINION AND ORDER re: 74 MOTION to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint filed by Steven J. Kelly, 70 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss TP plaintiff's Complaint filed by Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP: In sum, VRC has failed to sta te a claim for contribution against Sanford Heisler or Kelly. Furthermore, based on the pleadings and Kelly's uncontested affidavit, the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Kelly. For the foregoing reasons, the third-party defen dants' motions to dismiss are granted, and the Third-Party Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the entries at docket numbers 70, 74, and 78. (Steven J. Kelly and Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP terminated.) (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/25/2018) (jwh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------x
ALEXANDER PROUT,
Plaintiff,
-vANNE C. VLADECK & VLADECK, RASKIN
& CLARK , P . C . ,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------x
ANNE C. VLADECK & VLADECK, RASKIN
& CLARK, P.C.,
18 Civ. 260
(JSR)
OPINION AND ORDER
Counterclaim and
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-vALEXANDER PROUT,
USDCSDNY
Counterclaim Defendant,
DOCUMENT
ELECTR.ONICALLYFILBD
-and-
DOC #: _ _-,..,...,..,..,.-.1-...,..,..,.~
DATE FILED:
STEVEN J. KELLY, ESQ. and SANFORD
HEISLER SHARP, LLP,
Third-Party Defendants.
-----------------------------------------x
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court are the motions of Steven J. Kelly, Esq.
and Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP to dismiss the Third-Party
Complaint of Anne C. Vladeck and Vladeck, Raskin & Clark,
(together, "VRC"). ECF Nos. 70, 74.
P.C.
Previously, plaintiff
Alexander Prout brought an action against VRC for legal
malpractice,
in which Prout alleged that VRC negligently let the
1
statutes of limitations lapse on Prout's claims against his
former employer,
Invesco Ltd., for non-willful violation of the
Family and Medical Leave Act
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
("FMLA") and for retaliation under
("SOX"). ECF No. 32. By Order and Opinion
dated June 10 ("June 10 Order"), ECF No.
44, this Court denied
VRC's motion to dismiss Prout's malpractice claim, and by
Memorandum Order dated July 29 ("July 29 Order"), ECF No.
67,
this Court denied VRC's related motion for reconsideration.
VRC now brings contribution claims against Kelly and
Sanford Heisler. ECF No. 48. VRC alleges that Kelly acted as
concurrent counsel to VRC with respect to Prout's non-willful
FMLA claim, and that to the extent VRC was negligent in allowing
the statute of limitations on this claim to lapse, Kelly was
negligent as well. VRC alleges that Sanford Heisler acted as
subsequent counsel with respect to Prout's still-viable claims
for willful violation of the FMLA and retaliation under the
Dodd-Frank Act, and that to the extent VRC was negligent in
letting the statutes of limitations lapse on Prout's non-willful
FMLA and SOX claims, Sanford Heisler was negligent in settling
Prout's willful FMLA and Dodd-Frank claims, rather than
litigating them.
Sanford Heisler and Kelly both move to dismiss the ThirdParty Complaint for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b) (6). Kelly also moves to d1sm1ss the Third-Party
2
Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. See id. 12 (b) (2).
For the reasons stated below, Kelly and Sanford Heisler's
motions to dismiss are granted.
Background
Familiarity with all prior proceedings is here assumed. The
pertinent factual allegations, drawn from the Third-Party
Complaint and viewed in the light most favorable to VRC, are as
follows:
In May 2014, Prout contacted VRC seeking legal
representation to resolve a dispute with his then-employer,
Invesco. Third-Party Complaint ("Third-Party Comp.")
ECF No.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?