Bloom et al v. Emden et al

Filing 102

ORDER: Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Oral argument on the pending motion will be held via videoconference on Microsoft Teams on February 18, 2022 at 12:30 p.m. If the proposed time is inconvenient for the parties, they are directed to confer before suggesting alternative times to the Court. The Court will email the parties the Microsoft Teams link and will post the dial-in information to the docket for members of the public in advance of the argument. Prior to oral argument, the Court requests briefing on the following questions, as further set forth herein. The parties shall each file a letter no longer than five pages addressing these issues on or before January 21, 2022. To the extent either party seeks to respond further, they may do so by January 28, 2022. ( As further set forth in this Order.) ( Oral Argument set for 2/18/2022 at 12:30 PM before Judge Ronnie Abrams.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 1/7/2022) (vfr)

Case 1:19-cv-10155-RA-KHP Document 102 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: 01/07/2022

SUSAN F. BLOOM; FIDUCIARY TRUST
COMPANY INTERNATIONAL as
EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL &
TESTAMENT OF ADELE KLAPPER,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 19-CV-10155 (RA)
ORDER

JUAN CARLOS EMDEN, MIGUEL ERIC
EMDEN, and NICOLÁS MARCELO
EMDEN,
Defendants.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Oral argument on the pending motion will be held via
videoconference on Microsoft Teams on February 18, 2022 at 12:30 p.m. If the proposed time is
inconvenient for the parties, they are directed to confer before suggesting alternative times to the
Court. The Court will email the parties the Microsoft Teams link and will post the dial-in
information to the docket for members of the public in advance of the argument.
Prior to oral argument, the Court requests briefing on the following questions:
1. Given that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the painting at issue is physically located
within the Southern District of New York, Compl. ¶ 31, does the Court have in rem
jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action? See, e.g., Carlson v. Cuevas, 932 F.
Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Stein v. Annenberg Research Inst., No 90-CV-5224 (LLS), 1991
WL 143400 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1991).
2. To the extent Plaintiffs have pled, or if given the opportunity, could plead in an amended
complaint, a claim that Defendants tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ ability to sell the
painting, and if the Court were to find personal jurisdiction over Defendants under either
C.P.L.R. §§ 302(a)(2) or 302(a)(3) with respect to that claim, would the Court also have
personal jurisdiction over Defendants with respect to the claim for declaratory judgment?

Case 1:19-cv-10155-RA-KHP Document 102 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

The parties shall each file a letter no longer than five pages addressing these issues on or
before January 21, 2022. To the extent either party seeks to respond further, they may do so by
January 28, 2022.

Dated:

January 7, 2022
New York, New York

______________________________________
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

2