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.
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.