InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 52
Posts 4107
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/03/2005

Re: Cargoman007 post# 32846

Wednesday, 08/16/2017 1:47:01 PM

Wednesday, August 16, 2017 1:47:01 PM

Post# of 35791
Rather than judge the court case on someone's personal opinion, one can read the court's summary at: http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2015cv08710/449645/40/0.pdf?ts=1500035107

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Avner Maloul and Allen Lowy1 bring this case to recover from
Defendant New Colombia Resources, Inc. certain funds Plaintiffs allege they are
owed pursuant to five loans they extended to Defendant in 2003, 2004, and
2005. In short, Plaintiffs want their money back, with interest.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred under the six
year statute of limitations applicable to breach-of-contract claims under New
York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, Section 213(2).

…………….19 pages of arguments leading to………..

The Court is therefore skeptical that Plaintiffs ultimately will be able to
prove that they are entitled to equitable tolling, or that Defendant ultimately
will be able to prove that it already repaid Plaintiffs’ loans. But at this stage,
the Court cannot determine as a matter of law whether Plaintiffs’ untimely
breach-of-contract claims are saved by the doctrine of equitable estoppel, or
precluded because Defendant already discharged its obligations under the
parties’ contracts. Therefore, the Court must deny the parties’ cross-motions
for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also id. at 56(d) (“If a
nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may ... defer
considering the motion or deny it[.]”).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Inasmuch
as the parties did not introduce any additional documentation in response to
the Court’s June 19 Order, the Court understands that there is no additional
evidence in this case, and that discovery is not needed. For this reason, the
parties are directed to appear on August 1, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 618
of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in order to set a schedule
for trial. If, however, the parties believe that discovery is appropriate, they
must submit a joint letter to the Court on or before July 24, 2017, explaining
what discovery is needed and proposing a schedule for same. The Clerk of
Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Entries 29 and
31.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 13, 2017 New York, New York __________________________________

KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge

---------------------------

Perhaps this is another of the complications that is holding up the financials. Auditors are a part of this court case. For instance on page 17 of the court document, we find the following:

In part to explain its lack of documentary evidence of this assignment,
Defendant also invokes the doctrine of laches. (Def. Opp. 7-8). Defendant
argues that because Plaintiffs “delayed [nine-and-one-half] years to enforce
their rights,” Defendant is prejudiced in its ability to properly defend itself
against Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id.). Specifically, because Defendant’s auditor has
gone out of business, Defendant has been unable to locate records to support
properly defenses such as accord and satisfaction and a lack of privity. (Id.).

Opti

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.