Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 1 of 19
`
`:
`
`IUSDCSDNY
`I.
`DOCUIviENT
`
`ELECTRON! Cf,\L,L FILED
`
`IDOC #:
`
`!DATE FILE6:f-]1;~j 2
`1'-=====.---__'_._
`.. ..
`
`'--...
`
`I
`
`PI
`
`iff,
`
`11 Civ. 6538
`
`
`OPINION
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`----------x
`
`MARGOT NIEDERLAND,
`
`-against-
`
`AMBER TYLER CHASE,
`AND L'ORAGE LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`---------x
`
`A P PEA RAN C E S:
`
`At
`
`plaintiff
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`Avenue
`787
`New
`10019
`By:
`Netzer, Esq.
`Dan C. Kozusko, Esq.
`Mili G. Desai, Esq.
`
`Pro Se
`
`AMBER TYLER CHASE
`442 15th Street, 2R
`Brooklyn, NY
`11215
`
`
`
`:
`
`IUSDCSDNY
`I.
`DOCUIviENT
`
`ELECTRON! Cf,\L,L FILED
`
`IDOC #:
`
`!DATE FILE6:f-]1;~j 2
`1'-=====.---__'_._
`.. ..
`
`'--...
`
`I
`
`PI
`
`iff,
`
`11 Civ. 6538
`
`
`OPINION
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`----------x
`
`MARGOT NIEDERLAND,
`
`-against-
`
`AMBER TYLER CHASE,
`AND L'ORAGE LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`---------x
`
`A P PEA RAN C E S:
`
`At
`
`plaintiff
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`Avenue
`787
`New
`10019
`By:
`Netzer, Esq.
`Dan C. Kozusko, Esq.
`Mili G. Desai, Esq.
`
`Pro Se
`
`AMBER TYLER CHASE
`442 15th Street, 2R
`Brooklyn, NY
`11215
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 2 of 19
`
`Sweet, D.J.
`
`The defendant Amber Tyler Chase ("Chase" or the
`
`"Defendant")
`
`se, submitted a letter on March 23, 2012
`
`entitled "Request to Dismiss" which was treated as a motion.
`
`Plaintiff Margot Niederland ("Niederland" or the "Plaintiff")
`
`has moved to dismiss the counterclaims of Chase and L'Orage Ltd.
`
`("L' Orage") (collectively, the "Defendants") pursuant to
`
`12(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on the
`
`conclusions set forth below, the Defendant's motion is denied.
`
`Because the Defendant is pro se and because of her April 10,
`
`2012 letter requesting time to obtain counsel, the Plaintiff's
`
`motion to dismiss the Defendant's counterclaims is adjourned for
`
`45 days. Due to the history of the relationship
`
`the part
`
`described, the action is directed to the Honorable James L. Cott
`
`for settlement.
`
`Factual Background and Prior Proceedings
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 3 of 19
`
`Niederland is a documentary filmmaker.
`
`(Compl. ~ I). 1
`
`In the fall of 1990 t she produced t directed and edited a
`
`documentary film entitled "Broken Angel. ff
`
`Id. ~ 12)
`
`The film
`
`was a documentary featuring a Brooklyn buil ng of
`
`same name
`
`(the "Broken Angel Buildingff) owned by artist Arthur Wood
`
`("Wood ff
`
`)
`
`•
`
`Id. ~~ 13 14).
`
`In October 2006 t Niederland learned that Wood was in
`
`danger of being evicted from the Broken Angel Building t which
`
`was to be leveled.
`
`(Compl. ~ 20). Upon learning of the pending
`
`destruction of the Broken Angel Building t Niederland decided to
`
`make another film, which would be an expansion on her previous
`
`documentary film.
`
`(Id. ~ 24) .
`
`Chase is a filmmaker and graduate
`
`New York
`
`University in film who specializes in "narrative and documentary
`
`films.ff
`
`(Countercls. ~ 7). Defendant LtOrage is a New York
`
`corporat
`
`with its principal place
`
`business in Brooklyn.
`
`Id. ~ 2)
`
`LtOrage is a product
`
`company owned and operated
`
`by Chase.
`
`Id. ~ 14).
`
`1 Citations to Plaintiffs complaint are cited as "Compl. ~ _," while citations to Defendants' counterclaims are cited
`as "Countercls. ,r
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 4 of 19
`
`In approximately February 2007, Niederland emailed a
`
`number
`
`potential cinematographers, including Chase, stating:
`
`a cinematographer with a HI
`I'm URGENTLY looking
`END PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL movie camera to collaborate
`with me NOW on my new film 'Broken Angel: The Final
`Chapter' (working title). Filming to begin VERY SOON.
`* * *
`film I'll be doing now will 'complete'
`1 st
`(short film) -
`'Broken Angel' which I did year
`-
`ago and which has already gotten critical recognition.
`
`(Compl. ~ 27)
`
`Chase responded by email shortly
`
`thereafter:
`
`Sounds like fun. Documentary or narrative? ....
`I have a dvx-100 with wide angle lens, french
`matte box, steady cam shoulder support, trolley
`that we've used as a dolly.
`I like working with
`my camera and would like more kudos connected to
`my work .... P.S.
`I take good direction because
`I know what it's like to work with camera people
`who are just stupid.
`
`(Id. ~ 30). Niederland explained to Chase that she was a
`
`"filmmaker" and sought to create a sequel to her film "Broken
`
`Angel" about the upcoming demolition of the Broken Angel
`
`Building (the "Proposed Film") .
`
`(Countercls. ~ 9)
`
`Chase
`
`"agreed to work with Niederland on such a film."
`
`(rd. ~~ 10)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 5 of 19
`
`During the next few months, Chase and Niederland
`
`visited the building toget
`
`approximately 13 times.
`
`(Countercls. ~ 12-13). Chase shot film footage for the Proposed
`
`Filml including footage of the demolition
`
`part of the
`
`building.
`
`rd. ~ 13). According to Chase I she made the
`
`"decisions about what to filml when to film it and how to film
`
`it.1I
`
`(rd.). Chase maintains that at no t
`
`"did Ni
`
`and
`
`ever shoot
`
`footage with the cameral look through the lens
`
`the cameral or instruct Chase regarding camera equipment I
`
`que l
`
`focus l lenses or how to capture the footage. 1I
`
`(rd. ) .
`
`Niederland contends that Chase "operated the camera in
`
`accordance with the express instructions given to her ll by
`
`Niederland l including what she wanted filmed l the
`
`Ie of the
`
`cameral the focus of
`
`lens l and
`
`source
`
`light. 1I
`
`(Comp.
`
`~ 37). Chase states that "Niederland/s contribution to the
`
`film{ to the extent that it occurred{ was limited to scouting
`
`the location and providing Chase wi
`
`her opinions { many of
`
`which Chase did not adopt I
`
`regarding certain camera shots.H
`
`(Countercls. ~ 15).
`
`By late April 2007 1 Chase had shot approximately 15
`
`tapes at the Broken Angel Building and produced the master DVDs{
`
`which Chase contends is of "exceptionally high quality of which
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 6 of 19
`
`was sufficient to render them usable in a film" to Niederland
`
`Id. , 17). According to Chase, Niederland indicated "that she
`
`would return these master DVDs to Chase, but, despite Chase's
`
`repeated requests thereafter, Niederland has refused to do so."
`
`Id.
`
`On April 27, 2007, Chase provided Niederland with a
`
`written agreement delineating the parties' rights and
`
`responsibilities and a "sample of a deferred compensation
`
`contract."
`
`(Id. , 18; Compl.
`
`, 42). A
`
`scussion about
`
`contractual terms continued, Niederland and Chase could not
`
`agree on the terms of that contract and ended their
`
`collaboration.
`
`(Countercls. , 19; Compl.
`
`, 45).
`
`Since April 2007, Chase has independently shot film at
`
`the Broken Angel Building, including scenes featuring Wood, his
`
`wife and the
`
`daughter, which she intends to use in separate
`
`and distinct film, which is unrelated to the Proposed Film.
`
`(Countercls. , 21) .
`
`In May 2007, Chase applied for "a copyright
`
`registration on the film footage
`
`shot, whi
`
`she entitled 'A
`
`Castle In Brooklyn: Broken Angel'."
`
`(Id. , 22.) The United
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 7 of 19
`
`States Copyright Office granted her Registration No. PA 1 387
`
`652 for this footage" (the "Chase Copyright") .
`
`Id.
`
`In
`
`January 2008, Niederland applied
`
`a copyright registration as
`
`well, for a film "called 'Broken Angel: The Final Chapter.'"
`
`Id. ~ 23) The Copyright Office subsequently issued Niederland
`
`Registration No. PAu 3 338-782 (
`
`"Niederland Copyright") .
`
`Id.
`
`On March 13, 2008, Niederland filed an action
`
`nst
`
`Chase and L'Orage in the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of New York, Niederland v. Chase, No. 08
`
`1054 (NG)
`
`(the "E.D.N.Y. Action")
`
`Id. ~ 24; Kozusko Decl., Ex. C
`
`(E.D.N.Y. Compl.) at 1). Niederland alleged copyright
`
`infringement, asserted against Chase the copyright registration
`
`which Chase obtained, and sought a court order which would
`
`oin Chase from using any film footage covered by Niederland's
`
`copyright registration and direct Chase to turn over all master
`
`shot at the Broken Angel Building.
`
`(Countercls. ~ 24).
`
`At the direction of the Court, the parties conducted a
`
`series of mediation sessions to try and re
`
`the dispute.
`
`(Id. ~ 25.) The last session, which
`
`attended, occurred on
`
`June 2, 2008.
`
`Id.
`
`As a result of the mediation process,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 8 of 19
`
`June 2009, Niederland and Chase reached a settlement-in
`
`principle, subject to documentation, and informed the district
`
`court of the status of the
`
`dispute.
`
`(Id. ~ 26; Compl. ~ 55).
`
`Between June and October, they attempted to negotiate an
`
`acceptable settlement agreement in good faith.
`
`(Compl. ~ 57.)
`
`On October 26, 2009, the district court, acting sua sponte,
`
`entered an order (the ftClosing Orderll) that ftclosed ll the
`
`E.D.N.Y. Action, notwithstanding the still-active settlement
`
`negotiations.
`
`Id. ~ 59; Kozusko Decl., Ex. D). According to
`
`Niederland, following entry of the Closing Order, Chase withdrew
`
`from settlement negotiations ent
`
`ly.
`
`(Compl. ~ 66). As a
`
`result, the parties never reached a settlement of the E.D.N.Y.
`
`Action.
`
`The Closing Order states in its entirety:
`
`On June 4, 2009, the parties in this case reported to
`the Alternative Dispute Resolution Program of this
`district that they had reached settlement in
`mediation. This report was noted on the docket, and
`neither party has objected. The Clerk of Court is
`therefore directed to close this case.
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Although the Court scheduled a status conference for January 6,
`
`2010 to address the procedural status of the case, Judge Nina
`
`Gershon, by order dated December 17, 2009, cancel
`
`that
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 9 of 19
`
`conference (the "December Order"). (Kozusko Decl., Ex. E) and
`
`noted that the case was "closed." On December 24, 2009,
`
`Niederland requested in a letter to the Court that the case be
`
`reopened, a request that Judge Gershon denied by Order, dated
`
`February 2, 2010 (the "February Order") .
`
`(Kozusko Decl., Ex.
`
`F) .
`
`On April 2, 2010, Niederland moved for reconsideration
`
`to the Second Circuit, which affirmed Judge Gershon. See
`
`Niederland v. Chase, 425 F. App'x 10 (2d Cir. 2011).
`
`Niederland filed the instant action against the
`
`Defendants on September 20, 2011, asserting claims for copyright
`
`infringement, breach of contract, replevin, and unjust
`
`enrichment seeking possession of t
`
`Footage and damages for its
`
`unauthorized use by Chase, among other reI
`
`(CompI. "
`
`72
`
`107) .
`
`Chase filed her Amended Answer and Counterclaims on
`
`January 31, 2012, asserting eight counterclaims against
`
`Niederland:
`
`(1) Declaration
`
`Copyright Ownershipi
`
`(2)
`
`Copyright Infringement;
`
`(3) Fraud on the U.S. Copyright Officej
`
`(4) Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantagej
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 10 of 19
`
`(5) Malicious Prosecutioni
`
`(6) Abuse of Processi
`
`(7) Libeli and
`
`(8) False Pretenses.
`
`(Countercls. ~~ 36 69). The first three
`
`counterclaims are predicated on the allegation that Chase has a
`
`valid copyright registration as to the Footage, and that, as a
`
`result, Niederland had no right to use the Footage or to seek
`
`her own registration.
`
`(Id. ~~ 36-48). The counterclaim for
`
`tortious interference
`
`ses out of Niederland's alleged request
`
`that wood decline to allow Chase to use her image and
`
`conversations that Niederland purportedly had with the press.
`
`Id. ~~ 49 52). Both the malicious prosecution and abuse of
`
`process counterclaims are based on the allegation that
`
`Niederland commenced the instant action without justification.
`
`rd. ~~ 53 58). The counterclaim of libel is based upon a
`
`comment on a blog, which Chase
`
`leges was made by Niederland,
`
`and which Chase claims injured her professional reputation.
`
`rd. ~~ 59-63). Finally, Chase alleges that Niederland's
`
`lure to return the cloned DVDs and tapes, despite her
`
`purported promise to do so, constitutes "false pretenses."
`
`(Id.
`
`~~ 64-69).
`
`The instant motions were marked fully submitted on
`
`April 11, 2012.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 11 of 19
`
`The Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Is Denied
`
`In her letter of March 23, 2012, Chase does not
`
`specify the procedural basis on which she seeks dismissal
`
`the
`
`complaint, though she asks this Court to dismiss the complaint
`
`because the "causes of action" are legally "deficient" and as
`
`barred by res judicata.
`
`Under Rule 12(b) (6), Chase cannot move to dismiss
`
`failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
`
`because such a motion "must be made before pleading if a
`
`responsive pleading is allowed." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). As
`
`this Court has held, "[a] motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6)
`
`is untimely" where the movant "previously filed an answer in
`
`this action." Prince v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., No. 04-8151,
`
`2005 WL 1060373, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2005). Here, Chase has
`
`filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims in this action.
`
`Accordingly, her motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6) is
`
`untimely.
`
`To the extent that Chase has offered matters outside
`
`the pleadings for purposes of having the Court treat the
`
`ter
`
`as a motion for summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d),
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 12 of 19
`
`that request is also inappropriate. Chase l
`
`se, has not
`
`complied with the requirements for seeking summary judgment.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) i S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 56.1.
`
`Conversion to summary judgment at this stage of the case would
`
`not allow Niederland "a reasonable opportunity to present all
`
`material that is pertinent to the motion ll as Rule 12(d)
`
`requires.
`
`. R. Civ. P. 12 (d) .
`
`Therefore, Chase's motion to dismiss will be treated
`
`as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule
`
`12 (c). See Fed R. Civ. P. 12 (c) (stating that" [a] fter the
`
`pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the
`
`tri
`
`any party may move for judgment on the pleadings."); see
`
`1
`
`also Prince l 2005 WL 1060373 1 at *3. The standard for granting
`
`a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical
`
`to that of a Rule 12(b) (6) motion for failure to state a claim.
`
`________________ ____-L______________________ ______
`
`Hills 259 F.3d 123 1
`
`l
`
`~
`
`Classics of Beve
`
`~
`
`126 (2d Cir. 2001).
`
`Either party may move for judgment on the pleadings
`
`"[a]
`
`r the pleadings are closed. 1I
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
`
`"Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) prescribes when the pleadings are closed.
`
`In a case such as this when l
`
`in addition to an answer l
`
`a
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 13 of 19
`
`counterclaim is pleaded, the pleadings are closed when the
`
`plaintiff serves his reply." Flora v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan
`
`Ass'n, 685 F.2d 209, 211 n.4 (7th Cir. 1982); T.D. Bank. N.A. v.
`
`JP
`
`Chase Bank N.A., No. 10 Civ. 2843, 2010 WL 4038826,
`
`at *4 n.4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)
`
`("When cross- and
`
`counterclaims are filed, pleadings are not closed until answers
`
`to those claims have been filed.").
`
`Niederland has not yet served a reply to the
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`Instead, those Counterclaims are presently the
`
`subject of the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the
`
`pleadings here are not closed. See, e.g., State Farm Fire &
`
`______~____~______~________~______~~~, No. 10 1887, 2011
`
`WL 4056042, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2011) ("[Als long as a
`
`Rule 12 motion is pending as to a counterclaim, pleadings are
`
`not considered closed because a party, against whom a
`
`counterclaim is asserted, must file an answer to the
`
`counterclaim if the Rule 12 motion is denied .
`
`This view is
`
`in line with the position of federal courts across the country
`
`that have addressed this issue.") (collecting cases) .
`
`Because "
`
`pleadings are not closed in t
`
`s case,"
`
`Chase's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 14 of 19
`
`premature.
`
`Id. at *3 ("[T]he Court will not entertain the
`
`motions for judgment on the pleadings and both motions will be
`
`denied because the motions were filed prematurely.") i IconFind,
`
`_I_n_c_.__v_.____~__~~I~n_c~., No. 11 319, 2011 WL 4505817, at *1 (E.D.
`
`Cal. June 3, 2011) ("Plaintiff has not yet replied to
`
`Defendant's Second Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment
`
`Patent Invalidity. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Judgment
`
`on the Pleadings is DENIED as premature.") .
`
`In adjudicating a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court must
`
`"accept the allegations in the amended complaint as true and
`
`draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party's
`
`favor[,]" here the Plaintiff's. Patel, 259 F.3d at 126. The
`
`court should "not dismiss the case unless it is satisfies that
`
`the complaint cannot state any set of facts that would entitle
`
`him to reI ief . If
`
`Id. (citing
`
`v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147,
`
`150 (2dCir. 1994)).
`
`In the letter, Chase asserts that Niede and's claims
`
`for breach of contract (presumably including the claim for
`
`breach of an implied contract) and copyright infringement should
`
`be dismissed because " [c]opyright ownership must be transferred
`
`in writing and yet [Chase] never signed a written transfer of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 15 of 19
`
`her Copyright,· and because she "was granted the Registered
`
`copyright on August 9, 2007 as Director of Photography/
`
`Producer."
`
`The complaint alleges that Niederland and Chase
`
`entered into an oral contract, pursuant to which Chase "would
`
`film elements of the Broken Angel building at Plaintiff's
`
`direction,
`
`Plaintiff's subsequent use of the footage
`
`captured in the expansion film, and Plaintiff would pay Chase
`
`deferred compensation for her services."
`
`(Compl. ~ 84.) The
`
`complaint then alleges that Chase breached that oral contract
`
`when she refused to provide Niederland with the original
`
`footage, and that this breach damaged her.
`
`rd. ~~ 85 87.)
`
`Given that Niederland has pled facts in support of each of the
`
`necessary elements of a breach of contract claims under New York
`
`law
`
`rd. ~~ 82-87), the complaint states a claim upon which
`
`relief can be granted, and the breach of-contract claim cannot
`
`be dismissed on the basis of Chase's present submission.
`
`Both Niederland and Chase filed copyright
`
`registrations, and both have alleged to have been granted their
`
`request by the United States Copyright Office.
`
`rd. ~ 73i
`
`Countercls. ~ 22, Ex. A.) A motion for judgment on the
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 16 of 19
`
`pleadings cannot be granted where, as here, there are disputed
`
`"material issues of fact [that] remain to be resolved" by the
`
`trier of fact. Rivas v. Barnhart, No. 01-3672, 2005 WL 183139,
`
`at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2005); see also MacDonald v. Du
`
`Maurier, 144 F.2d 696, 700-01 (2d Cir. 1944)
`
`("Upon motion for
`
`judgment on the pleadings
`
`. this allegation must be accepted
`
`despite its denial in the appellee's answer.") .
`
`Judgment on the pleadings is also inappropriate for
`
`the additional reason that certain of the facts cited in the
`
`March 23, 2012 letter appear nowhere in the pleadings.
`
`Judgment
`
`on the pleadings is only appropriate "where a judgment on the
`
`merits is possible merely by considering the contents of the
`
`pleadings." Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc., 842 F.2d 639,
`
`642 (2d Cir. 1988).
`
`Both in her Counterclaims, where she explicitly refers
`
`to the E.D.N.Y. Action as having been "dismissed with prejudice"
`
`(Countercls. ~ 26), and in her March 23, 2012 letter, where she
`
`describes the E.D.N.Y. action as "an already dismissed case,"
`
`Chase appears to seek dismissal of this action on res judicata
`
`grounds, that it is barred by the purported dismissal of the
`
`E.D.N.Y. Action.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 17 of 19
`
`The E.D.N.Y. Action, however, was not adjudicated on
`
`the merits, as the case was "closed" or
`
`smissed.
`
`In Penn West
`
`Associates v. Cohen, 371 F.3d 118, 126 (3d Cir. 2004), the Third
`
`rcuit held that a case marked "closed" because it had settled
`
`in principle was not di
`
`ssed, and thus the closure did not bar
`
`a subsequent action.
`
`Id. The Third
`
`rcuit reasoned that,
`
`because "nothing in the [closing] order mention[ed] dismissal,"
`
`the closing order constituted "an administrative closing,"
`
`rather than a dismi
`
`Id. at 129. The Court also noted that
`
`there is "no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`by which the mere passage of time can mature an administrative
`
`closing into a dismissal[.]"
`
`Id. at 128.
`
`Thus, the Closing Order was not an adjudication on the
`
`merits, and absent such an adjudication, res judicata does not
`
`apply. See Grant v. New York, No. 88-8703, 1989 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 5716, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 1989) ("Since there was no
`
`adjudication on the merits, the doctrine of res judicata does
`
`not apply.").
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons stat
`
`above, Chase's
`
`motion to dismiss is denied.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 18 of 19
`
`The Motion To Dismiss The Counterclaims Is Adjourned And The
`Action Is Referred To The Magistrate For Settlement
`
`"Determinations on motions for adjournment are 'made
`
`in the discretion of the trial judge, the exercise of which will
`
`ordinarily not be reviewd.'" Rosario v.
`
`, 542 F. Supp. 2d
`
`328, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) {quoting
`
`----~------------
`
`, 308 U.S.
`
`444, 446, 60 S. Ct. 321, 84 L. Ed. 377 (1940)) i see also Drake
`
`v. Portuondo, 321 F.3d 338, 344 (2d
`
`r. 2003) ("Scheduling is a
`
`matter that is of necessity committed to the sound discretion of
`
`the t
`
`al court.") .
`
`"[O]nly an unreasoning and arbitrary
`
`'insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable
`
`request for delay' violates [the Constitution]." Bones v.
`
`Superintendent, Groveland Correctional Facility, 2011 WL
`
`1792779, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. May 6, 2011) (quoting Morris v. Sl
`
`461 U.S. 1, 12, 103 S. Ct. 1610, 75 L. Ed. 2d 610 (1983).
`
`In her April 10, 2012 letter, Chase
`
`ayed to the
`
`Court that she had "part ways with [her] former counsel" and
`
`has "been hesitant in requesting an extension
`
`time to secure
`
`effective representation in order to resubmit accurate
`
`Counterclaims." Because the Defendant is
`
`se and because her
`
`~-----
`
`request for time to obtain counsel is reasonable, Niederland's
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:11-cv-06538-RWS Document 31 Filed 06/26/12 Page 19 of 19
`
`motion to dismiss the Counterclaims will be adjourned for 45
`
`days.
`
`The cooperation between the part
`
`to develop a
`
`documentary film
`
`early 2007 dissolved in dispute, and
`
`resulted in litigation in the Eastern District of New York in
`
`2008, which was announced as settled in June 2008. Again, the
`
`cooperation between the parties dissolved and the agreement was
`
`never reached. Although the case was closed, it remains
`
`unresolved and presumably subject to being reopened.
`
`This duplicitous action will be referred to Magistrate
`
`Judge James L. Cott to supervise the settlement in an effort to
`
`once again reach a resolution absent a wasteful and expensive
`
`litigation.
`
`It is so ordered.
`
`New York, NY
`June t.,(!? , 2012
`
`U.S.D.J.
`
`18
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
