Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 9
`
`"~ ,
`
`iIUSO~C .~~~
`I DOt,..i,!;l.LENT
`\;&cn<ON1CAlLY FILED
`DOC If:
`\
`\
`------- ---- -----------------X~O~AJ~r~E~:f~:lf~~D~:~~~\:3~~'J==;3:::u
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------
`JAMIE A. NAUGHRIGHT,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`10 Civ. 8451
`
`-against-
`
`OPINION
`
`DONNA KARAN WEISS, URBAN ZEN, LLC,
`STEPHEN M. ROBBINS, JOHN DOES 1-25,
`
`Defendants.
`
`------x
`
`A P PEA RAN C E S:
`
`for plaintiff
`
`MIZZONE LAW FIRM, P.A.
`
`35 E. Grassy Sprain Road
`
`Yonkers, NY
`10710
`
`By:
`John A. Testa, Esq.
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`Donna Karan Weiss and Urban Zen, LLC
`
`
`GORDON & SILBER, P.C.
`
`355 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
`
`New York, NY
`10017-6603
`
`By: Laura E. Rodgers, Esq.
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`GOLDSMITH, RICHMAN & HARZ
`747 Third Avenue
`New York, NY
`10017
`By: Howard S. Richman, Esq.
`
`
`
`"~ ,
`
`iIUSO~C .~~~
`I DOt,..i,!;l.LENT
`\;&cn<ON1CAlLY FILED
`DOC If:
`\
`\
`------- ---- -----------------X~O~AJ~r~E~:f~:lf~~D~:~~~\:3~~'J==;3:::u
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------
`JAMIE A. NAUGHRIGHT,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`10 Civ. 8451
`
`-against-
`
`OPINION
`
`DONNA KARAN WEISS, URBAN ZEN, LLC,
`STEPHEN M. ROBBINS, JOHN DOES 1-25,
`
`Defendants.
`
`------x
`
`A P PEA RAN C E S:
`
`for plaintiff
`
`MIZZONE LAW FIRM, P.A.
`
`35 E. Grassy Sprain Road
`
`Yonkers, NY
`10710
`
`By:
`John A. Testa, Esq.
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`Donna Karan Weiss and Urban Zen, LLC
`
`
`GORDON & SILBER, P.C.
`
`355 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor
`
`New York, NY
`10017-6603
`
`By: Laura E. Rodgers, Esq.
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`GOLDSMITH, RICHMAN & HARZ
`747 Third Avenue
`New York, NY
`10017
`By: Howard S. Richman, Esq.
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 2 of 9
`
`Sweet, D.J.
`
`Defendants Donna Karan Weiss ("Karan") and Urban Zen,
`
`LLC
`
`("U
`
`Zen") (collective
`
`referred to as the "Karan
`
`Defendants") have moved (i) for partial final judgment as to the
`
`Karan De
`
`s, pursuant to
`
`R. Civ. P. 54 (b)
`
`("
`
`54 (b)") i
`
`(ii) to amend the capt
`
`by deleting the Karan
`
`Defendants, pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`. P. 15i and (iii) to enjoin
`
`the plaintiff, Jamie A. Naughright ("Naughright" or
`
`"Plaintiff") from continuing this action or instituting
`
`further action or actions against the Karan Defendants, pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Based upon
`
`conclusions set
`
`below, the mot
`
`s to amend the
`
`and partial f
`
`judgment are granted and the motion
`
`an
`
`injunction is
`
`Prior Proceedings
`
`Naughright filed a complaint
`
`inst the defendants on
`
`November 8, 2010.
`
`complaint was dismiss
`
`on November 18,
`
`2011. The amended
`
`int was filed on De
`
`r 9, 2011,
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 3 of 9
`
`alleging injuries resulting from treatment Naughright received
`
`on November 8, 2009, at Karan's apartment.
`
`In an opinion issued on March 7, 2012 (the "March 7
`
`Opinion"), the negligent misrepresentation claim against the
`
`Karan Defendants was dismissed, the motion to dismiss the
`
`negligence claim against defendant Stephen M. Robbins
`
`("Robbins") was denied, the fraud claim against Robbins was
`
`dismissed in part, and the motion to dismiss the medical
`
`malpractice battery and failure to obtain consent claims against
`
`Robbins were denied.
`
`The instant motion was heard and marked fully
`
`submitted on December 12, 2012.
`
`The Applicable Rule S4(b) Standard
`
`In an action involving multiple claims or multiple
`
`parties, an order that finally disposes of fewer than all claims
`
`against all parties is generally not entered as a "final
`
`judgment." Rule 54(b). However, Rule 54(b) permits the court
`
`to expressly direct the entry of final judgment as to
`
`individually dismissed claims or parties when:
`
`(1) there has
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 4 of 9
`
`a "final decision" on at least one claim or the rights and
`
`liabilities of at least one party; and (2) the district court
`
`rna
`
`s an express determination that
`
`is "no just reason for
`
`ay" and expressly directs
`
`rk to enter judgment.
`
`Id.
`
`see also
`
`Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. J.V.W. Inv. Ltd.,
`
`232 F.R.D. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The
`
`ion of whether
`
`"t
`
`re is no just reason for delay" is
`
`tted to the sound
`
`discretion of the district court, with
`
`gu
`
`ng principle of
`
`promot
`
`efficiency interests of both
`
`district and
`
`appellate courts, as well as the balance of equities as to the
`
`parties.
`
`Id. at 175-76. The interests of justice and judicial
`
`economy are
`
`st served by entry of partial
`
`1 judgment when:
`
`(1) the cla
`
`upon which final judgment is
`
`ing entered are
`
`separable and ext cable from any remaining
`
`a
`
`(2) the
`
`potential
`
`icative work could be avoided if
`
`dismissed
`
`claim was revers
`
`time to be tried with the remaining
`
`claims; and/or (3) there exists some danger of ha
`
`h
`
`or
`
`injustice through
`
`lay which would be all
`
`ated by immediate
`
`appeal. Advanced
`
`Inc. v. Ba front Partners
`
`Inc.
`
`106
`
`F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 1997); Correspondent Servs., 232 F.R.D. at 175
`
`(citations omitt
`
`).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 5 of 9
`
`No Just Reason To Delay The Judgment Has Been Established
`
`Naughright has not oppos
`
`t
`
`54(b) motion of the
`
`Karan Defendants. The claims against
`
`Karan Defendants are
`
`from the claims aga
`
`t Robbins.
`
`though the Karan
`
`De
`
`s were involved in the circumstances giving rise to
`
`ght's claims against Robbins, no basis for delaying the
`
`entry of a partial judgment dismissing cIa
`
`against the Karan
`
`De
`
`s has been established.
`
`A dismissal with prejudice pursuant to
`
`e 12(b) (6)
`
`is a
`
`ision and judgment on the merits. See, e.g.,
`
`L
`
`v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pitt
`
`202 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 126, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Courts in
`
`s
`
`st
`
`have
`
`granted certification and entry of final judgment as to a
`
`particular
`
`in the wake of a dismissal on
`
`e 12(b) (6)
`
`grounds. See
`- - - - ' - - - " " -
`
`In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 609 F. Supp.
`
`2d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
`
`(holding there was no just reason
`
`r
`
`delay, and directing t
`
`rk, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`54(b), to enter f
`
`1 judgment as to the dismissal of
`
`plaintiff's claims
`
`a particular defendant pursuant to
`
`Rule 12 (b) (6)) .
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 6 of 9
`
`Given
`
`ence of a just reason to delay entry of a
`
`partial judgment,
`
`ion
`
`such an entry is granted.
`
`The Caption Is Amended
`
`Leave to amend a p
`
`ng "shall be freely given when
`
`justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (2), and courts
`
`routinely direct the clerk of t
`
`court to amend the caption and
`
`remove the names of part
`
`s
`
`been dismissed from the
`
`v. Doueck, No. 10 Civ. 7653 (PKC),
`action. See, e.g., Bett
`------~-------------
`
`2011 WL 2419799, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2011) (directing the
`
`clerk of the court to amend the
`
`to remove the name of a
`
`defendant who had been dismis
`
`action on Rule
`
`12(b) (6) grounds). Accordingly, the
`
`should be amended
`
`to reflect the dismissal with prejudice of
`
`Karan Defendants
`
`and the Clerk of the Court should be
`
`re
`
`to remove them as
`
`defendants from the Amended Complaint.
`
`No Basis For Injunctive Relief Has Been Established
`
`As noted by the Karan Defendants, "the traditional
`
`rds for injunctive relief, i.e., irreparable
`
`ury and
`
`i
`
`e remedy at law, do not apply to the issuance of an
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 7 of 9
`
`junction against a vexatious litigant ... [and] a history of
`
`litigation entailing vexation, harassment and
`
`ess expense
`
`to
`
`r parties and an unnecessary bu
`
`on the courts and
`
`ir supporting personnel is enough" to warrant such a remedy.
`
`In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 12
`
`(2d Cir. 1984)
`
`1 citations omitted). The
`
`rmination as to whether
`
`injunctive relief is necessary or
`
`iate under the
`
`rcumstances is left to the sound
`
`scretion of the District
`
`Court, guided by the following
`
`ctors:
`
`(1) the litigant's history of litigation and in
`particular whet
`r it entailed vexatious,
`harassing or duplicat
`lawsuits;
`(2) the
`litigant's mot
`pursuing the litigation,
`e.g., does t
`litigant have an objective good
`faith expectation of prevailing?;
`(3) whether the
`Ii tigant is
`resented by counsel;
`(4) whether
`the litigant
`s caused needless expense to other
`parties or
`s pos
`an unnecessary burden on the
`courts and
`ir
`sonnel; and (5) whether other
`sanctions would
`adequate to protect the courts
`and other
`rt s.
`
`Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24
`
`(2d Cir. 1986).
`
`Karan Defendants have asserted
`
`Naughright has
`
`an extens
`
`hi
`
`of filing repetitive lawsuits a
`
`inst or
`
`involving public figures, apparently having "spent
`
`majority
`
`of eight years [1998 through 2005J filing 1
`
`1
`
`aints
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 8 of 9
`
`against or about [ ytonJ Manning ... [some of which] had no
`
`sis
`
`law or in
`
`ct and were fueled only by [plaintiff's]
`
`relentless sea
`
`r revenge."
`
`No.: 05 Civ. 637 (2005), Document #16 at p. 1, 7
`
`(M.D.
`
`2005); see also
`
`. of Tenn. et al. EEOC
`
`Complaint #2
`
`63209 (1996);
`
`al., No.: 02
`
`v. 1026 (2002)
`
`(M.D.
`
`a. 2002). Also noted by
`
`the Karan De
`
`s is another
`
`rsonal injury action currently
`
`pending
`
`Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida filed five months
`
`prior to t
`
`commencement of
`
`s lawsuit and in wh
`
`Naughright seeks compensation
`
`physical inju es of the kind
`
`she has alleged herein. See
`
`v. Deli Delicacies
`
`Inc.
`
`et al., No.: 2010CA-005205-0000
`
`a. Cir. Ct. 2002).
`
`In addition, correspondence has been submitted in
`
`which Naughright describes, or repeats, her
`
`ion and claims
`
`against Robbins and his
`
`resentations.
`
`Notwithsta
`
`above, however, no irreparable
`
`injury to the Karan De
`
`s has been es
`
`lished, nor has
`
`been established that Naughright's conduct s
`
`sses the
`
`threshold set forth in Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d at 1262.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:10-cv-08451-RWS Document 114 Filed 05/03/13 Page 9 of 9
`
`No basis for injunctive relief having been
`
`established, the motion of the Karan Defendants to bar
`
`Naughright from any action against them is denied at this time.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The entry of a partial final judgment dismissing the
`
`ims against the Karan Defendants is granted, the caption is
`
`amended accordingly and the motion for injunction is denied.
`
`It is so ordered.
`
`New York, NY
`May ~, 2013
`
`8
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
