Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC

7 Citing cases

  1. Windward Bora LLC v. Durkovic

    22-CV-411 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 18, 2024)   Cited 3 times

    Because the prior state court action involved a different mortgage, it does not bar the Court from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims in this action. See Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC, No. 16-CV-7185, 2019 WL 1492347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (explaining that “simultaneous foreclosure proceedings involving the same property but different mortgages are not problematic”); see also Cent. Tr. Co. v. Dann, 85 N.Y.2d 767, 771-72 (1995) (concluding that a senior mortgagee's foreclosure action did not bar a junior mortgagee from commencing a foreclosure action because the RPAPL provisions that constrain a party's ability to commence multiple foreclosure actions are “mortgagee specific and debt specific”).

  2. Windward Bora LLC v. Durkovic

    22-CV-00411 (MKB) (LGD) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Discussing the standing for a foreclosure action and summary judgment under RPAPL claims

    Because it concerns a different mortgage, that pending state action does not preclude Plaintiff from seeking to foreclose on the Property in this federal case. See Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC, No. 16-CV-7185, 2019 WL 1492347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019).

  3. Bongiovanni v. PennyMac Corp.

    19 Civ. 3260 (EK) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2022)

    Cases are only considered “parallel” when “substantially the same parties are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issue in another forum,” see Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 673 F.3d at 100 (citation omitted), and “there is a substantial likelihood that the state litigation will dispose of all claims presented in the federal case.” Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC, No. 16 Civ. 7185 (NGG) (RER), 2019 WL 1492347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see ECF No. 81 at 11; Bongiovanni, 2021 WL 1193043, at *4. As before, at least one of Plaintiff's federal claims, the FCRA claim, “find[s] no analogue in the state action.”

  4. Abrahami v. Meister Seelig & Fein LLP

    21 Civ. 10203 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Finally, there is not “a substantial likelihood that the state litigation will dispose of all claims presented in the federal case.” Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC, No. 16 Civ. 7185 (NGG), 2019 WL 1492347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (emphasis added). Even if Abrahami were to prevail against the Guarantors and recover his entire $30 million loss, the factfinder in this case would still need to determine whether MSF is liable for the expenses Abrahami has incurred as a result of the default. Accordingly, the two cases are not parallel for purposes of Colorado River abstention.

  5. Malancea v. MZL Home Care Agency, LLC

    18-CV-00732 (CBA)(TAM) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2021)

    When analyzing whether the two cases are parallel for the purposes of abstention under Colorado River, the relevant inquiry is whether "there is a substantial likelihood that the state litigation will dispose of all claims presented in the federal case." Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC. 16-cv-7185 (NGG) (RER), 2019 WL 1492347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31. 2019): Sitgraves v. fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 265 F.Supp.3d 411, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).

  6. Bongiovanni v. Pennymac Corp.

    19-CV-3260(EK)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Cases are parallel when "substantially the same parties are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issue in another forum," see id., and "there is a substantial likelihood that the state litigation will dispose of all claims presented in the federal case." Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC, No. 16-CV-7185, 2019 WL 1492347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). Dismissal pursuant to Colorado River means the federal court has "presumably conclude[d] that the parallel state-court litigation will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties."

  7. J&J Sports Prods. v. Usman

    17-cv-5335 (NG) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2019)

    Given the contradictory nature of these statements, as well as Usman's contention that he was not at Red Mist on the night in question, I do not find that Usman's assertions create an issue of material fact as to whether there was advertising, and will treat this factor as satisfied. See Courchevel 1850 LLC v. 464 Ovington LLC, 2019 WL 1492347, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) ("The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the non-movant will be insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." (internal quotation marks omitted)); D'Amico, 132 F.3d at 149; Transflo Terminal Servs., Inc., 248 F. Supp. 3d at 399.