Rimler v. Ripple Junction Design Co.
| Ripple Junction Design Co. and Sean Rimler |
| 2:2019cv05953 |
| October 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Pamela K Chen |
| Cheryl L Pollak |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 15, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MOTION to Change Venue by Ripple Junction Design Co.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Mark Wilson) (Cartafalsa, Joseph) |
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM in Support of Venue in Eastern District of New York filed by Sean Rimler. (Reid, Gregory) |
| Filing 8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Venue Submissions by Sean Rimler. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order on Consent Extending Time to File Venue Submissions) (Reid, Gregory) |
ORDER: The Court grants #8 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiff shall submit his brief by 11/8/2019. Defendant shall file its response by 11/15/2019. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 11/1/2019. (Shi, Yi Qing)
|
|
Order: As the parties were advised at October 29, 2019 preliminary injunction hearing, the Court provides the following additional legal support and analysis for its oral decision denying the requested preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has failed to establish irreparable harm as required for a preliminary injunction. See Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) ("District courts may ordinarily grant preliminary injunctions when the party seeking the injunction demonstrates (1) that he or she will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and (2) either (a) that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits, or (b) that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation, and that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party."). In determining whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, "the Court must actually consider the injury the plaintiff will suffer if he or she loses on the preliminary injunction but ultimately prevails on the merits, paying particular attention to whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury." Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 80 (2d Cir. 2010). Plaintiff's reliance on any difficulty in obtaining a job is unavailing. See Hyde v. KLS Prof'l Advisors Grp., LLC, 500 F. App'x 24, 26 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Difficulty in obtaining a job is undoubtedly an injury, but it is not an irreparable one...."). Plaintiff's argument with respect to his financial hardship and his family's needs also does not establish irreparable harm. Williams v. State Univ. of N.Y., 635 F. Supp. 1243, 1247 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) ("In an employment discharge case the requisite irreparable harm is not established by financial distress or inability to find other employment, unless truly extraordinary circumstances are shown.") (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). In order to establish extraordinary circumstances, "a plaintiff would have to show little or no chance of securing future employment, no personal or family resources, and the inability to finance a loan or obtain public assistance." Cooper v. TWA Airlines, LLC, 274 F. Supp. 2d 231, 241 (E.D.N.Y. 2003). Plaintiff's testimony and other evidence adduced at the October 29 hearing demonstrate that Plaintiff's claim of financial distress is largely the result of his unwillingness to seek employment for less pay than he was receiving with Defendant, or employment outside of the licensed apparel or accessories area, and his unwillingness to adjust his and his family's lifestyle. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to show irreparable harm and his motion for preliminary injunction is denied.As the Court also noted at the October 29 hearing, there is also a serious question whether venue is proper in this court. Plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment seem to be governed by the forum selection clause in the non-competition and non-solicitation agreement entered into by the parties that is at issue in this case. See Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Centimark, Corp., No. 04-CV-0916, 2005 WL 1038842, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 3, 2005) ("[E]ven where a forum selection clause does not explicitly govern a given cause of action, courts will inquire into whether the other claims are sufficiently related to the claim that is specifically covered by the clause."). That provisions states that "any action to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be brought only in a state or federal court located in Hamilton County, Ohio." Plaintiff's claim in this case-seeking to declare the agreement invalid and unenforceable-are inseparable from any potential action to enforcement the agreement. See C. Thorrez Indus., Inc. v. LuK Transmissions Sys., LLC, No. 09-CV-1986, 2010 WL 1434326, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2010) ("Any evaluation of this claim, again, will require a court to determine whether a valid contract exists, and [] whether the parties fulfilled their duties and obligations under the contract, a decision which the forum selection clause requires to be made in Wayne County."). Therefore, it appears that transfer of this matter to the Southern District of Ohio would be appropriate here. See Young Women's Christian Ass'n of U. S., Nat. Bd. v. HMC Entm't, Inc., No. 91-CV-7943 (KMW), 1992 WL 279361 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1992) (transferring case to California when plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment involve rights arising out of the contract, which was contracted to be adjudicated in California); S & L Birchwood, LLC v. LFC Capital, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d 280, 285 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (transferring an action for declaratory judgment that the plaintiff was not in default of the agreement, where the forum selection clause provided that "[plaintiff] irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of any federal or state court located [in Illinois] and waives to the fullest extent allowed by law any objection to venue in such court"). Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 10/31/2019. (Shi, Yi Qing)
|
| Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Pamela K. Chen: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 10/29/2019. Appearances by Gregory Reid and Charles Kaplan for Plaintiff; Joseph Cartafalsa and David Skidmore for Defendant. Case called. Witness sworn. Testimony heard. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court also set the briefing schedule on the issue of venue: (1) Plaintiff shall submit his brief by 11/5/2019; (2) Defendant shall file its response by 11/12/2019. (Court Reporter Michele Lucchese.) (Abdallah, Fida) |
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #5 Memorandum in Support, of Plaintiff's Application for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Ripple Junction Design Co.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Joseph Accardi, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Joseph Accardi, #3 Declaration of Mark Wilson) (Cartafalsa, Joseph) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Cartafalsa on behalf of Ripple Junction Design Co. (aty to be noticed) (Cartafalsa, Joseph) |
| Filing 5 MEMORANDUM in Support re Show Cause Hearing,, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Siegel v. The Holson Co, #2 Exhibit B - Yedlin v. Lieberman, #3 Exhibit C - Leska v. Grant Intl Co., Inc, #4 Exhibit D - Godoy v. FDR Servs. Corp, #5 Exhibit E - Turnage v. Match Eyewear, #6 Exhibit F - Nigra v. Young Broad. Of Albany, Inc) (Reid, Gregory) |
| Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Pamela K. Chen: Temporary restraining order hearing held on October 24, 2019. Appearance by Gregory Reid for Plaintiff; Joseph Cartafalsa for Defendant. Case called. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court considers Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and denies the motion. The Court will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on 10/29/2019, at 3:00 p.m. at Courtroom 4F North. At the hearing, the parties may each produce one witness, who may appear via telephone. (Court Reporter Charleane Heading.) (Shi, Yi Qing) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Ripple Junction Design Co.. (Flanagan, Doreen) |
| Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Flanagan, Doreen) |
| Filing 2 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made. (Flanagan, Doreen) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen and Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Flanagan, Doreen) |
| Incorrect Case/Document Entry Information. Deleted Plaintiff Ripple Junction Design Co. from the case. Deleted Document Entry No. 1 (Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, Proposed Summons and Exhibits) and re-entered as against Defendant. (Flanagan, Doreen) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ripple Junction Design Co. Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Sean Rimler. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons, #3 Exhibit A-Rimler Employment Agreement, #4 Exhibit B-NDA) (Flanagan, Doreen) |
| FILING FEE: $ 400.00, receipt number ANYEDC-11969461 (Flanagan, Doreen) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Rimler v. Ripple Junction Design Co. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Ripple Junction Design Co. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sean Rimler | |
| Represented By: | Gregory Edward Reid |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
