Motion to Stay Proceedings in BLOCKTOWER CAPITAL LLC v. MIGUEL, GUSTAVO| Trellis.Law

On November 20, 2017 a Order was filed involving a dispute between Blocktower Capital Llc, Counterclaim Plaintiff Gustavo Miguel, and Ari, Counterclaim Defendant Block Tower Capital,Llc, Counterclaim Defendant Matthew Goetz, Counterclaim Defendant Paul Ari, Gustavo Miguel, Matthew Goetz, for M50 - Misc - Declaratory Judgment in the District Court of Fairfield County.

Preview
DOCKET NO. FST-CV-17-6034009-S : SUPERIOR COURT
:
BLOCKTOWER CAPITAL LLC : J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant :
:
v. : AT STAMFORD
:
GUSTAVO MIGUEL :
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff : JANUARY 29, 2018

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY

Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 13-5, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Gustavo

Miguel (“Mr. Miguel”) moves this Court for a protective order staying discovery for sixty (60)

days, up to and including March 30, 2018, pending a California trial court’s resolution of

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant BlockTower Capital LLC (“BlockTower”)’s motion to stay a

parallel action by Mr. Miguel in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County (“the

California action”).1 In support of this motion, the undersigned represent as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. On October 25, 2017, undersigned attorney Scott Doonan notified BlockTower of

Mr. Miguel’s intention to sue BlockTower to recover damages for BlockTower’s fraudulent

conduct and breach of contract. See Email from S. Doonan to A. Levine (Oct. 25, 2017, 8:33

A.M.), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

2. The very next day, October 26, 2017, BlockTower prepared its Complaint for

Declaratory Relief (Dkt. 100.31).

1
Miguel v. Paul, et al., Case No. BC683653 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. See Summons and Verified Complaint [hereinafter Miguel
Compl.], true and correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

6303351
3. The day after that, October 27, 2017, BlockTower sought to serve that Complaint

upon Mr. Miguel through Mr. Doonan. See Email from A. Rana to S. Doonan (Oct. 27, 2017,

6:01 P.M.), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4. Mr. Doonan declined to accept service on behalf of Mr. Miguel; accordingly, on

October 27, 2017, BlockTower served Mr. Miguel via Connecticut’s Secretary of State pursuant

to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b. See Email from A. Levine to S. Doonan (Nov. 13, 2017, 3:43

P.M.), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. BlockTower notified Mr.

Doonan that it “plan[ned] to file [the Complaint] in the Judicial District of Stamford on or before

November 21, 2017, which [would] perfect commencement of the action against Mr. Miguel as

of October 27, the date of service.” See id.

5. BlockTower filed its Complaint for Declaratory Relief in the Judicial District of

Stamford/Norwalk on November 20, 2017 and propounded its first set of discovery requests and

a notice of Mr. Miguel’s deposition eleven days later, on December 1, 2017.

6. On November 16, 2017—four days before BlockTower filed its Complaint for

Declaratory Relief—Mr. Miguel filed a Verified Complaint against BlockTower, Ari Paul

(“Paul”), and Matthew Goetz (“Goetz”) in the California Superior Court for the County of Los

Angeles. See Miguel Compl. (Ex. A). The Verified Complaint asserts causes of action for fraud

and conspiracy to commit fraud against BlockTower, Paul, and Goetz and a cause of action for

breach of contract against BlockTower. See id. A Connecticut State Marshal served

BlockTower and Paul with process on November 21, 2017. See Affidavits of Service, true and

correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit E.

7. One month later, on December 21, 2017, BlockTower moved to stay the

California action for forum non conveniens. See Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. Stay

2
6303351
(Dec. 21, 2017) [hereinafter Def.’s Mot. Stay], a true and correct copy of which is attached

hereto as Ex. F. BlockTower argued, inter alia, that (1) Connecticut was the “most suitable

forum for the resolution of Miguel’s claims,” (2) Connecticut has “a significant public interest in

adjudicating this case,” and (3) “private interest factors [] weigh heavily in favor of a stay.” See

id. at 1-2.

8. Mr. Miguel’s deadline for filing an opposition to BlockTower’s motion to stay is

March 15, 2018; the court will hold a hearing on the motion to stay on March 29, 2018. See id.

9. On January 18, 2018, undersigned counsel for Mr. Miguel asked BlockTower

whether it would agree to litigate in California; BlockTower would not agree. On January 25,

2018, undersigned counsel asked BlockTower whether it would agree to stay discovery in

Connecticut pending the California court’s resolution of BlockTower’s motion to stay;

BlockTower would not agree. Accordingly, Mr. Miguel now seeks a protective order staying

discovery for sixty (60) days, up to and including March 30, 2018, pending the California trial

court’s resolution of BlockTower’s motion to stay.

ARGUMENT

10. The arguments weighing against a stay of the California action are many. First

and foremost, the above-captioned Connecticut action is nothing more than an anticipatory

declaratory judgment suit brought solely to gain a procedural advantage and preempt Mr.

Miguel’s forum choice. While courts considering a motion to stay may give an earlier action

priority, an exception exists “where a party files a declaratory judgment action in anticipation of

a coercive suit.” See Chicago Ins. Co. v. Holzer, No. 00 Civ. 1062(SAS), 2000 WL 777907, at

*2, 4 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2000) (“[C]ourts may ignore the timing of a suit to avoid rewarding

parties attempting to use the declaratory judgment action in a ‘race to the courthouse;’”

3
6303351
“Precedence is not afforded to a declaratory judgment action filed specifically to gain the ‘home

field advantage’ over an imminent coercive suit.”); see also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Howmet Corp.,

No. CV 950550685S, 1997 WL 625442, at *2-3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 1997) (“[A] stay

should not be ordered if . . . it appears that the foreign suit was instituted merely to forestall the

domestic suit.”).2 That BlockTower prepared its Complaint the day after and served its

Complaint two days after Mr. Doonan notified BlockTower of Mr. Miguel’s intention to sue

underscores the preemptive nature of its lawsuit. See Chicago Ins. Co., 2000 WL 777907, at *2

(noting that “the filing of a declaratory judgment action triggered by a notice letter is a

persuasive indicator of anticipatory conduct”). BlockTower accused Mr. Miguel of “bad faith

forum shopping” in its California pleadings, see Def.’s Mot. Stay at 1 (Ex. D); BlockTower

should look in the mirror.

11. Second, California is unquestionably the most suitable forum for the resolution of

Mr. Miguel’s claims. Mr. Miguel is a California resident and the contract at issue in the case

was meant to be performed in California. Moreover, Mr. Miguel alleges in painstaking detail

that BlockTower, Paul, and Goetz engaged in intentional conduct expressly aimed at Mr. Miguel

in California, knowing that their intentional conduct would cause harm in California. See Calder

v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790 (1983) (holding it was proper for California court to exercise

jurisdiction over two Florida newspapermen in a libel action arising out of their intentional

conduct in Florida which was allegedly calculated to cause injuries to plaintiff in California).

Finally, litigating in Connecticut would represent a significant hardship to Mr. Miguel, who has

substantial family and work obligations in California and is not a multimillion-dollar hedge fund.

2
True and correct copies of unreported decisions are attached hereto as Exhibit G.

4
6303351
12. In view of the arguments weighing against a stay of the California action, there

exists good cause for a stay of discovery here pending the California court’s resolution of

BlockTower’s motion to stay. See Ritchie v. Nyfix, Inc., No. FSTCV064009324S, 2007 WL

806240, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 22, 2007) (Nadeau, J.) (granting defendant’s motion to stay

discovery until resolution of the pending motion to dismiss);2 see also Conn. Prac. Book § 1-8

(providing that the rules of practice are to be liberally interpreted to advance justice). Engaging

in discovery in Connecticut when the California action should—or even could—go forward

would amount to a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources. Accordingly, and as

indicated above, undersigned counsel for Mr. Miguel asked BlockTower to agree to a stay

pending the California court’s resolution of its motion to stay. BlockTower refused,

demonstrating that its—and not Mr. Miguel’s—sole intention is to burden Mr. Miguel with the

expense of litigating in multiple forums.

13. Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book §§ 13-7 and 13-10, Mr. Miguel’s deadlines

to object or respond to BlockTower’s first and second sets of discovery requests are January 30,

2018 and March 12, 2018, respectively. BlockTower has noticed Mr. Miguel’s deposition for

February 12, 2018. Should the Court grant the requested stay of discovery, Mr. Miguel’s

discovery responses would be postponed by no more than 59 and 18 days, respectively, and Mr.

Miguel’s deposition would be postponed by no more than 46 days. Moreover, there is currently

no scheduling order in place in this action. Therefore, the Court’s granting of this motion will

neither cause undue delay in the progression of the action nor cause prejudice to any party

involved.

5
6303351
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Gustavo Miguel respectfully moves

for a protective order staying discovery for sixty (60) days, up to and including March 30, 2018,

pending the California court’s resolution of BlockTower’s motion to stay.

DEFENDANT,
GUSTAVO MIGUEL

By: /s/ Jennifer Brooks Crozier
Jennifer Brooks Crozier
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
265 Church Street, Suite 1207
New Haven, CT 06510
Phone: (203) 836-2801
Fax: (203) 836-2802
Email: jcrozier@goodwin.com
-and-
D. Scott Doonan, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
Law Offices of Doonan & Doonan, Inc.
627 W. Allen Avenue, Ste. 200
San Dimas, CA 91773
Tel: (626) 332-5090
Fax: (626) 332-5190
Email: sdoonan@doonanlaw.com

His Attorneys.

6
6303351
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 29th day of January, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was
filed electronically and served on counsel of record by mail on anyone unable to accept
electronic filing.

Glenn A. Duhl, Esq.
Zangari, Cohn, Cuthebertson, Duhl & Grello, P.C.
59 Elm Street, Suite 400
New Haven, CT 06510
Tel: (203) 786-3709
Fax: (203) 782-2766
Email: gduhl@zcclawfirm.com

-and-

Andrew Levine, Esq.
Amit Rana, Esq.
Braunhagey & Borden LLP
220 Sansome Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 599-0210
Fax: (415) 276-1808
Email: Levine@braunhagey.com
Email: Rana@braunhagey.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Jennifer Brooks Crozier
Jennifer Brooks Crozier

7
6303351
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
From: Scott Doonan
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Andrew Levine
Subject: Gustavo Miguel/BlockTower

Dear Mr. Levine: Subsequent to responding to your October 24, 2017, email, Mr. Miguel and I had an opportunity to
discuss the history of communications between you and I regarding Mr. Miguel and BlockTower. Without going into an
in depth analysis of your attempts to fabricate claims against Mr. Miguel which do not exist and veiled threats to
damage Mr. Miguel’s reputation if he files suit against BlockTower, it has become clear from the history of
communication that BlockTower, under your guidance, has never intended to attempt to resolve this matter short of
litigation. Accordingly, please be advised that Mr. Miguel withdraws his previous offer to settle this matter informally
and has instructed me to file suit against BlockTower without further notice or communication to you. While Mr. Miguel
was willing to settle this matter for the wages owed to him and payment of his 3.5% equity share of BlockTower, in the
end some things have a greater value than money, exposing BlockTower’s fraudulent conduct and mistreatment of Mr.
Miguel is one of those things. When Mr. Miguel files suit, I intend to prevent BlockTower from obtaining any further
investors as I want to keep the status quo of BlockTower’s equity pending disposition of Mr. Miguel’s claims to prevent
dilution of his interest. Please refrain from further threatening Mr. Miguel’s reputation or the filing of cross-claims as
your threats are ineffective.

D. Scott Doonan
Law Offices of Doonan & Doonan, Inc.
627 W. Allen Avenue, Ste 200
San Dimas, California 91773
(626) 332-5090 tele
(626) 332-5190 fax

1
EXHIBIT C
From: Amit Rana [mailto:rana@braunhagey.com]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 6:01 PM
To: Scott Doonan
Cc: Andrew Levine ; Glenn Duhl
Subject: BlockTower Capital LLC v. Gustavo Miguel - Superior Court of Connecticut

Mr. Doonan –

Please see the attached summons and complaint in the above-referenced matter.

Please let us know if you will accept service on behalf of your client, Gustavo Miguel, so we can call off our process
server.

Best,
Amit

Amit Rana
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP

Direct: (415) 599-0221

San Francisco (Main Office)
220 Sansome Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel. & Fax: (415) 599-0210

New York
80 Broad Street, Ste. 1302
New York, NY 10004
Tel. & Fax: (646) 829-9403

This message is intended only for the confidential use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain protected information that is subject to
attorney-client, work product, joint defense and/or other legal privileges.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately at
the phone number listed above and permanently delete the original message and any copies thereof from your email system.
Thank you.

1
EXHIBIT D
From: Andrew Levine [mailto:levine@braunhagey.com]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 3:43 PM
To: Scott Doonan
Cc: Amit Rana
Subject: BlockTower Capital LLC v. Miguel (Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford Oct. 27,
2017)

Scott –

Please find attached a courtesy copy of the proof of service by the Connecticut State Marshal of
BlockTower Capital, LLC’s summons and complaint against Mr. Miguel in the above captioned action
(also attached). The same was delivered to Mr. Miguel via certified mail.

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 52-59b, service was effective on October 27, 2017. The
complaint is not yet in the public file, but we plan to file it in the Judicial District of Stamford on or
before November 21, 2017, which will perfect commencement of the action against Mr. Miguel as of
October 27, the date of service.

If Mr. Miguel is interested in a resolving this matter pre-filing please let us know. We believe the
general terms of BlockTower’s previous proposals for resolution have been more than generous (i.e.,
some reasonable severance commensurate with Mr. Miguel’s short tenure at the company,
representations and warranties from Mr. Miguel that he has returned all company confidential
information, and mutual releases). Also, note that the Company has placed $30,309.51 in escrow
pending resolution of the instant dispute. That amount represents full payment of Mr. Miguel’s
wages through his date of termination, September 21, 2017, as well as reimbursement for company
related expenses incurred by him prior to that date.

Kindly forward the above to Mr. Miguel. If you are no longer representing him, please provide
contact information for his counsel, or let us know if the company should contact him directly.

Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Levine
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
Direct: (415) 599-0207
Cell:(415) 636-2540

San Francisco (Main Office)
220 Sansome Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel. & Fax: (415) 599-0210

New York
7 Times Square
27th Floor
New York, NY 10036-6524
Tel. & Fax: (646) 829-9403

This message is intended only for the confidential use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain protected
information that is subject to attorney-client, work product, joint defense and/or other legal privileges.
If you are
not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately at the phone number listed above and permanently
delete the original message and any copies thereof from your email system. Thank you.
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Howmet Corp., Not Reported in A.2d (1997)
1997 WL 625442

In 1991, the New Jersey court ruled that Howmet
should commence a new action for two additional sites,
1997 WL 625442
(Blackbird and Dover) rather than amending its then
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
pending 1986 complaint. The 1991 litigation has been
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK proceeding apace, and Judge Sheldon found that the
COURT RULES BEFORE CITING. Holden site claim, under New Jersey's liberal relation back
of claims rule was first filed in New Jersey, as it related
Superior Court of Connecticut. back to 1991, and therefore, was filed before Travelers'
suit here. It appears however, that claims relating to
The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,
the Holden site were not intensively investigated, nor
v. discovery sought, until recently.
HOWMET CORPORATION et al.
Almost concurrently, Travelers sought to stay the portion
No. CV 950550685S.
of the New Jersey litigation relating to Holden while
|
Howmet seeks to stay the Connecticut proceedings.
Sept. 29, 1997.
The New Jersey trial judge (Stanton, J.), granted
Travelers' motion to stay the Holden claim, which order
RULING ON MOTION FOR STAY OF Howmet appealed. Upon reversal, Judge Stanton on
DEFENDANTS HOWMET CORPORATION reconsideration in the light of the Appellate Division's
AND PECHINEY CORPORATION (# 192) remand, denied Traveler's motion to stay and also denied
Howmet's motion to enjoin Travelers from proceeding to
TELLER.
litigate the Holden site claim here.
*1 The plaintiff insurance companies (Travelers) seek
a declaratory judgment as to their respective rights Howmet essentially argues in support of its motion that a
and obligations under certain liability insurance policies stay will: (1) preserve the resources of this court and the
(policies) which they issued to the defendants Howmet parties and promote judicial economy; (2) that Travelers
and Pechiney (Howmet) and its predecessors and/or has engaged in “forum shopping”; (3) the New Jersey
litigation is more complete, as it presently includes two
affiliates. Travelers has also sued 35 other insurers in
of the three sitesoriginally at issue in this action, as
this action begun in May 1995. Specifically, Travelers
well as a number of additional sites, and also includes
seeks a determination that it owes no duty of defense or
Howmet's claim for breach or contract damages, while the
indemnity under the policies as to certain environmental
Connecticut action (at present) seeks only a declaratory
claims made involving three industrial sites used, owned
judgment; (4) the New Jersey action is more advanced,
and/or operated by Howmet and/or itspredecessors or
in terms of discovery, including a number of depositions
affiliates.
taken involving the Holden site, without notice to or
the presence of Howmet's Connecticut counsel; (5) the
The three sitesoriginally at issue here, are the Holden
simultaneous pendency of the two actions will result in
Mine site in Chelan, Washington (Holden), the BMI
a “rush to judgment,” leading to confusion between the
Complex in Clark County, Nevada (BMI) and the
two courts and the possibility of inconsistent legal rulings,
Kennecott site in Salt Lake City, Utah (Kennecott).
and (6) there is another form of relief available, and in
During oral argument the court was informed that the
any case, Traveler's action for a declaratory judgment is
claim regarding the BMI site will be withdrawn and that
subject to a motion to strike.
the Kennecott site claim would be litigated in New Jersey,
leaving the Holden site, which Travelers urges should be
*2 Travelers essentially argues in opposition to the stay
litigated in Connecticut.
that: (1) Connecticut is the home state of Travelers and
Howmet, (2) Judge Stanton's granting of the stay gave
The New Jersey litigation,covering a number of sites,
express deference to the Connecticut court to proceed
which involved the same parties and the same insurance
with the Holden claim; (3) the Holden litigation was first
policies, commenced in 1986, and was eventually settled.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Howmet Corp., Not Reported in A.2d (1997)
1997 WL 625442

filed in Connecticut; (4) Howmet is collaterally estopped will consent to stay or dismiss the second action in the
from relitigating Judge Friend's order which conditionally other state; but such a stay is not a matter of right and
granted Howmet's motion to formally add the Holden is not required, but rests within the discretion of the
claim to the New Jersey complaint; (5) Connecticut has court in the exercise of which it must see that injustice
more significant interests in adjudicating the Holden is not done; and a stay should not be ordered ifthe
claim than New Jersey and the Holden claim will likely opportunity to obtain satisfaction in the foreign suit is
receive more expeditious adjudication in this state; and (5) not as good as the domestic suit, or that it appears that
simultaneous prosecutions of both actions will not result the foreign suit was instituted merely to forestall the
in confusing or conflicting legal rulings, nonduplicative domestic suit.” (Internal citations and quotation marks
site specific discovery will be required regardless of omitted.) The Connecticut proceedings have been pending
where the litigation proceeds, procedural problems from for over two years, and the pleadings are not yet closed.
parallel proceedings will not be a great concern, and It is exceedingly unlikely, considering what has transpired
that maintaining the Connecticut action will not further to date, that these proceedings would be ready for trial
piecemeal litigation. in the near future. 2 This is especially so as Howmet
has indicated itsintention to move to strike Traveler's
It is significant that Judge Sheldon, while denying claim for a declaratory judgment. This will inevitably
Howmet's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, lead to another round of briefs and oral argument and
discussed the test by which federal courts must determine determination of the sufficiency of the complaint by a
if federal declaratory judgment actions should be stayed Connecticut judge. No matter how prompt a briefing and
or dismissed in favor of parallel state actions under Wilton argument schedule may be implemented, additional time
v. Seven Falls Co., 114 S.Ct. 2137, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995). and effort will be expended. Indeed, what has happened in
He noted that: “A stay, unlike a dismissal, leaves the court the past two months, with counsel whip sawing both state
in a position to monitor the progress being made in the courts over tangential matters belies Travelers' argument
parallel litigation, and to reassert its jurisdiction over the that procedural problems from parallel proceedings will
parties' dispute if the interests of justiceso dictate. To not be a great concern or cause piecemeal litigation.It
adopt the less drastic remedy of a stay, a less stringent test also graphically demonstrates the danger of confusion and
or standard [then for a dismissal] is arguably justifiable.” inconsistent rulings, placing each court, in a continuous
“Alphonse-Gaston” mode, and invites the litigants to
“... [I]f Howmet's motion did ask for a stay, the Court remain on a perpetual Sysiphus type round trip between
would be bound to apply Connecticut's own well-settled
the two states. 3
rules for determining the appropriateness of staying an in-
state action in favor of an out of state action involving the
*3 It is abundantly clear that allowing parallel actions
same parties and the same subject matter. See generally,
to proceed will require needless expenditures of time and
Sauter v. Sauter, 4 Conn.App. 581, 584-85, 495 A.2d 1116
resources of the litigants,counsel and the courts, will
(1985).” Memorandum, 15, n. 10.; see also, 28, n. 14.
not further or enhance judicial economy, will encourage
forum shopping and condone procedural “gamesmanship
Sauter v. Sauter, supra, 4 Conn.App. 584-85, states: “It
at the expense of the interests of justice.”
makes little sense, however, for two actions for the same
relief to be litigated in parallel, with the plaintiff in each
Even though the Holden claim may be overlapping,
seeking to rush to judgment. In the interests of judicial
the issues for resolution in New Jersey are substantially
economy, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion,
similar. The parties and the policies are the same. The
order that the second action be stayed during the pendency
requests for relief are substantially similar.
of the first action, even though the actions are pending in
different jurisdictions.
It also appears that the New Jersey court has been
successful in proceeding with this case both logistically
Where an action is pending in one state, the court of
and mechanically. Moreover, it has successfully achieved
another state in which another action, involving the
a resolution of a number of disputes which have previously
same parties and subject matter, is brought, may grant
divided the parties.
a stay or proceeding in the latter action, unless plaintiff

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Howmet Corp., Not Reported in A.2d (1997)
1997 WL 625442

Travelers' claims relating to the rulings of Judges Stanton the Sauter factors, I find that the concept of judicial
economy is overarching and must control. It would
and Friend merit little discussion. Judge Stanton's order
allow the parties to concentrate their time and energies
staying the Holden claim proceedings was reversed on
in one forum, thereby avoiding unnecessary expense,
appeal, and upon remand and reconsideration, he denied
duplications of pleadings and discovery, confusion, and
the stay. Therefore, Travelers' additional claim that Judge
perhaps inconsistent rulings. Single forum litigation will
Stanton's initialruling demonstrated a deference to the
also discourage races to the courthouse and thereby avoid
Connecticut court was eclipsed by events. Travelers'
the dissipation of the resources of all concerned.
claim that Judge Friend's order permitting Howmet to
amend its complaint to include the Holden claim, upon
Accordingly, in the light of the above findings, and for
condition that the Connecticut proceeding be dismissed,
the reasons stated, Howmet's motion is granted, and the
also warrants deference to the Connecticut court, is not
proceedings herein are ordered stayed until the parallel
supported by the terms of the order, which is silent if the
action in New Jersey is concluded.
dismissal were not to be granted.

Although the fact that Connecticut is the home state of All Citations
both Travelers and Howmet is entitled to great weight,
under the totalityof the circumstances, after balancing Not Reported in A.2d, 1997 WL 625442

Footnotes
1 For a fuller, more detailed factual background of the relationship among the parties and the legal history of this complex
case see Judge Sheldon's Memorandum of Decision dated July 31, 1997 denying defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
the ground of forum non conveniens. I see no reason to repeat Judge Sheldon's recitation which thoroughly and aptly
sets forth a description of the litigation among the parties pending in New Jersey and in Connecticut. (Hereinafter
“Memorandum.”)
2 Indeed, an examination of the Connecticut court file reveals that over 95 pleadings, motions and other filings have been
entered as of this date, and as Travelers points out in its brief, at p. 21, “The Connecticut court has already devoted a
great deal of time and judicial resources to [this] action, including status conferences, oral argument on motions and the
lengthy decision by Judge Sheldon ...”
3 In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was commanded to roll a large boulder up a hill. As he neared the crest, a mysterious
force caused the boulder to roll to the plain below, whereupon Sisyphus repeated the process perpetually. Bullfinch's
Mythology, 1964 Ed., 190.

© 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Chicago Ins. Co. v. Holzer, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2000)

November 3, 1999 through November 3, 2000. Id. Holzer,
a citizen and domiciliary of the State of New Mexico, is
KeyC te Ye ow F ag Negat ve Treatment a member of the New York bar and maintains an office
D st ngu shed by O eg Cass n , Inc. v. Serta, Inc., S.D.N.Y., March
3,
in Albany, New York. Id. ¶ 1. On September 30, 1999,
20 2
CIC issued a change endorsement making Holzer's New
2000 WL 777907
Mexico address an alternative location for the policy. Id.
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
¶ 6. Subsequent to that date, CIC sent all correspondence
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
to Holzer's New Mexico address.
CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v. In mid-November 1999, Trout Trading Management
Company filed suit against Holzer and his client Timothy
Henry Mark HOLZER, Defendant.
Trout in the United States District Court for the District
No. 00 Civ. 1062(SAS). of New Mexico. Id. ¶¶ 7 8. That complaint asserts nine
| causes of action against Holzer, including malicious abuse
June 16, 2000. of process and public disclosure of private facts. Id. ¶ 15.
After Holzer's New York insurance broker informed CIC
Attorneys and Law Firms of the Trout action, CIC contacted Holzer regarding the
processing of its evaluation of Holzer's coverage under the
Steven A. Coploff, Steinberg & Cavaliere, LLP, White
professional liability policy. See 12/8/99 Letter to Holzer
Plains, NY, for Plaintiff.
from CIC, Ex. 6 to Holzer Decl. Five days later,CIC
Lance J. Gotko, Friedman Kaplan & Seiler LLP, New notified Holzer that it had declined coverage. See 12/13/99
York, NY, for Defendant. Letter to Holzer from CIC, Ex. 7 to Holzer Decl., at 1.

Throughout the month of December 1999 and the
beginning of January 2000, CIC and Holzer exchanged a
OPINION AND ORDER
series of letters regarding CIC's declination of coverage.
SCHEINDLIN, J. Holzer Decl. ¶¶ 18 20. During this period, Holzer retained
Lance J. Gotko, Esq., who wrote CIC requesting a
*1 On February 10, 2000, defendant Henry Mark Holzer reversal of its decision not to cover Holzer. See 1/10/00
removed to this Court the declaratory judgment action Letter to Tami L. Harwood from Gotko, Ex. 8 to Holzer
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by Decl. Gotko further informed CIC, “if CIC's decision not
plaintiff Chicago Insurance Company (“CIC”). Plaintiff to defend Holzer remains unaltered, we willcommence
seeks a declaration that it has no obligation to defend suit in a court of appropriate jurisdiction in forty eight
and indemnify Holzer in an action brought against him in (48) hours.” Id. at 2. The following day, counsel for CIC
the United States District Court for the District of New sent a letter to

Case Info

Judge

Kenneth B. Povodator Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 29, 2018

Case Filing Date

November 20, 2017

County

Parties

ARI ("PAUL") PAUL Defendant
BLOCKTOWER CAPITAL LLC Plaintiff
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT BLOCK TOWER CAPITAL,LLC Defendant
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT MATTHEW GOETZ Defendant
COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANT PAUL ARI Defendant
COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF GUSTAVO MIGUEL Plaintiff
GUSTAVO MIGUEL Defendant
MATTHEW GOETZ ("GOETZ") Defendant
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP Attorney for the Defendant
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP Attorney for the Plaintiff
ZANGARI COHN CUTHBERTSON DUHL & GRELLO P Attorney for the Defendant
ZANGARI COHN CUTHBERTSON DUHL & GRELLO P Attorney for the Plaintiff
Glenn Duhl Attorney
Donald Frechette Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Order: BLOCKTOWER CAPITAL LLC v. MIGUEL, GUSTAVO

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties