JTRE Manhattan Avenue LLC et al v. Capital One, N.A.

Filing 143

ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT granting 138 MOTION for Entry of Judgment. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), the Court now directs that final judgment be entered in this case, dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant for the reasons stated in Dkt. 135, and granting judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs in the amount of one dollar as to Defendant's breach of contract counterclaim for Plaintiffs' failure to fix the roof of the property at issue. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Rochon on 9/25/2024) (jca) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JTRE MANHATTAN AVENUE LLC and
JTRE 807 MANHATTAN AVENUE LLC,
Plaintiffs,
-againstCAPITAL ONE, N.A.,

Case No. 1:21-cv-5714 (JLR)
ORDER ENTERING
JUDGMENT

Defendant.
JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge:
On June 27, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant as to
Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant and awarded Defendant partial summary judgment on
liability as to its breach of contract counterclaim against Plaintiff. Dkt. 135. The Court ordered
the case to proceed to bench trial on the remaining portions of Defendant’s breach of contract
counterclaim, including whether Plaintiff was liable for allowing disruptive construction and the
amount of compensatory damages owed Defendant. Id. at 34-35.
On August 21, 2024, Defendant withdrew its theory of liability relating to disruptive
construction and its claim for compensatory damages. Dkt. 138 at 2. Defendant now seeks
nominal damages in the amount of one dollar or as deemed appropriate by the Court as to the
portion of its breach of contract counterclaim for which the Court has already awarded summary
judgment in favor of Defendant. See id. at 2. Plaintiffs assert that the Court should still hold a
trial, although it acknowledges that nominal damages may be recovered for breach of contract.
Dkt. 142 at 1. Plaintiffs have not provided any basis for a trial given that Defendant seeks only
nominal damages on the counterclaim for which the Court has granted summary judgment and
Defendant has withdrawn its remaining counterclaims for breach of contract based on allowing
disruptive construction.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), the Court now directs that final
judgment be entered in this case, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant for the reasons
stated in Dkt. 135, and granting judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs in the
amount of one dollar as to Defendant’s breach of contract counterclaim for Plaintiffs’ failure to
fix the roof of the property at issue.
Dated: September 25, 2024
New York, New York

SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ROCHON
United States District Judge