Katzman v. Helen of Troy Texas Corporation et al
| Richard D. Katzman |
| Helen of Troy Texas Corporation and Helen of Troy Limited |
| 1:2012cv04220 |
| May 29, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
69
OPINION & ORDER: In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, (1) the funds corresponding to Claims One, Two, Five, Six, Nine, and Tenan amount equal to $2,303,613shall remain in escrow; (2) $37,771.60 shall be paid to HoT from the es crow fund immediately; and (3) all remaining money in the escrow fund shall be released to Katzman and the selling shareholders. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Katzman is entitled to prejudgment interest on HoT&# 039;s Claims Three, Four, Eight, and Eleven through Eighteen. Accordingly, the Court awards Katzman the amount of those claims-$9,362,390-plus prejudgment interest at the rate of nine percent per annum, covering the period May 16, 2012 to the date of this judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 4/11/2013) (djc)
|
|
Filing
64
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, partial summary judgment is entered for Katzman on each of Katzmans three causes of action.1. On the first cause of action, alleging breach of contract against Helen of Troy Texas Corp., summary judgment is entered for Katzman with respect to the following claims in HoTs Indemnity Demand Notice: Claims Three, Four, Eight, and Eleven through Eighteen. Damages equating to the aggregate values assigned to these 11 claims are to be paid to Katzman from t he Indemnity Escrow Fund. Summary judgment is denied with respect to the following claims in HoTs Indemnity Demand Notice: Claims One, Two, Five, Six, Nine, and Ten. 2. On the second cause of action, alleging breach of contract against Helen of Troy Limited, summary judgment is entered for Katzman for the same claims in HoTs Indemnity Demand Notice as on the first cause of action, and denied for the same claims as on the first cause of action. 3. On the third cause of action, for a declaratory j udgment, the Court declares that HoT is not entitled to withhold escrow funds in order to satisfy the liabilities claimed in Claims Three, Four, Eight, and Eleven through Eighteen in HoTs Indemnity Demand Notice.For the foregoing reasons, HoTs motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of its counterclaims for indemnification is denied, without prejudice to HoTs right to bring such claims in the future.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 25 and 34. There are a number of issues in this matter as to which the Court seeks guidance:With respect to the seven claims by HoT on which the Court has not granted summary judgment in favor of Katzman, the Court invites the parties views on (1) whether summa ry judgment in favor of HoT can be granted, or whether additional findings must be made before determining that funds corresponding to these claims must remain in escrow; (2) with respect to the New York State Claim, whether Katzman is conceding that $37,771.60 must be paid to HoT from the escrow fund, and if not, how the case should proceed as to that claim; and (3) with respect to the AMT Claim, how to proceed, in light of the open questions identified at pages 2930, supra. With respect t o the 11 of HoTs claims on which summary judgment has been granted in favor of Katzman, the Court notes that, in his breach of contract causes of action, Katzman sought pre- and post-judgment interest and the costs of collection. See Compl. 32, 37; see also N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5001 (pre-judgment interest). To the extent such relief is still pursued, the Court invites the parties views as to whether Katzman is entitled to such relief, and if so, how it is to be measured. Towards this end, the C ourt directs the parties to submit a joint letter, due by February 18, 2013, setting out the parties' respective views on these and any other open issues in the case,and a proposed expedited schedule, through and including trial, to address thes e issues. Counsel are directed to meet and confer together about such issues, and about the prospect of settling the parties' broader dispute, no later than February 14, 2013. A pretrial conference is scheduled for March 6, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 1/28/2013) (js)
|
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 Southern 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
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.
