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, 2 022 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 t o 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 addressi ng 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)

Download PDF
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

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?