Opinion
99 Civ. 9623 (RWS).
October 27, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action, initially removed to this Court on September 10, 1999, has been remanded by the Court of Appeals based upon its opinion, Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004). In reversing the decision of this Court, the Court of Appeals announced the complete preemption doctrine and stated with respect to certain of the decisions contained inBriarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., No. 99 civ. 9623 (RWS), 2000 WL 235284 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2000), 2002 WL 31426207 (S.D.N.Y. October 30, 2002):
Second, with regard to the causes of action dealing with breach of fiduciary duty, our holdings thus far change the landscape to such an extent that we feel it prudent to allow the district court to revisit its decision.Briarpatch Ltd., 373 F.3d at 309.
Following remand, the plaintiffs Briarpatch Limited, L.P. ("Briarpatch") and Gerard Rubin ("Rubin") have moved for leave to file their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") under Rule 15, Fed.R.Civ.P., and alternatively to remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The defendants Phoenix Pictures, Inc. ("Phoenix") and Morris "Mike" Medavoy ("Medavoy") have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, leave is granted to file the FAC, and the motion for summary judgment is denied.
In the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, the following related cases have been litigated:Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., Index No. 603820/99; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Geisler, Index No. 116002/02; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., Index No. 11722/99; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Pate, Index No. 600505/99; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Pate, Index No. 603269/99; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Geisler, Index No. 606156/98; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Verner, Index No. 603323/01; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Frankfurt Garbus Klein Selz, Index No. 603074/02; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Stage Fright LLC, Index No. 605828/99; Briarpatch Limited L.P. v. Briarpatch Film Corp., Index No. 603364/01. The following actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Stage Fright LLC, 00 Civ. 2907; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Stage Fright LLC, 00 Civ. 2904; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Geisler,
00 Civ. 2906; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Stage Fright LLC, 00 Civ. 2907; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Pate, 00 Civ. 3523;Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Geisler, 01 Civ. 2339; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Pate, 01 Civ. 2340; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Geisler, 02 Civ. 1590; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Thomas, 02 Civ. 1591; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Pate, 02 Civ. 1603;Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Pate, 99 Civ. 8968; Briarpatch Limited, L.P. v. Stage Fright LLC, 99 Civ. 10022.
Briarpatch has pursued and renewed its claims with tenacity and inconclusivity. Given the difficulty of the jurisdictional issues presented by the change in the landscape of this action and the law of the case, it does seem prudent to start over with the hope that the submissions and decisions of the past will bring a final resolution in the near future.
The Motion To Amend Is Granted
For the first time copyright claims as such have been proposed in the FAC. Their factual proximity to previously stated claims obviates the objection of undue delay. Any other defenses may be asserted by motion. The Motion For Summary Judgment Is Denied
Briarpatch has asserted on this motion, and apparently on appeal, that discovery of the formerly designated fraudulently joined party Geisler Roberdeau, Inc. might affect the outcome of any summary judgment. The standards governing Rule 56(f), Fed.R.Civ.P., have not been met with precision since there is no description of the facts expected to be adduced or the efforts to adduce them or the reason for the lack of success. Notwithstanding, it seems prudent to complete discovery before seeking a final disposition.
Further, there are disputed factual issues with respect to the knowledge of Medavoy and the imputation of that knowledge to Phoenix.
In view of the docket entry of March 3, 2000: "* * * Terminated party Geisler Roberdeau (ii): (Entered: 03/06/2000)," it is assumed that Geisler Roberdeau, Inc. is no longer a party in this action. If it is to be joined or restored in some fashion, Briarpatch must move to do so.
Upon the completion of discovery, Phoenix and Medavoy are granted leave to renew their motion for summary judgment on the papers submitted or any additional materials. Discovery will be completed within sixty (60) days or in such additional time as the parties may agree upon.
Conclusion
The motion to file the FAC is granted and the motion for summary judgment denied.
It is so ordered.