Rinaldi v. SCA La Goutte, D'Or et al
| Mario Rinaldi |
| SCA La Goutte, D'Or and Sas Ch. & A. Prieur |
| 1:2016cv01901 |
| March 14, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Vernon S. Broderick |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 |
| Plaintiff |
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
273
CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT amending 272 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of SCA La Goutte, D'Or against Mario Rinaldi in the amount of $2,318,506.85. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Co urt's Opinion and Order dated December 2, 2022, La Goutte's objections to Plaintiff's proposed judgment, La Goutte's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and La Goutte's motion for a new trial and request for remittitur are DENIED. A jury trial was held in the above-captioned action before the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Court Judge, commencing on February 17, 2022 and lasting ten (10) days. After due deliberation, the jury returned a v erdict in favor of Plaintiff Mario Rinaldi in this action in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00). Plaintiff is entitled under New York law to prejudgment interest of 9% per annum running from February 1 2, 2016 in the amount of Eight Hundred Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars and 85/100 ($818,506.85). Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1961. Plaintiff Mario Rinaldi has judgment against Defen dant SCA La Goutte d'Or in the amount of Two Million Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars and 85/100 ($2,318,506.85) in addition to any applicable post-judgment interest; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 12/5/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
|
|
Filing
272
OPINION AND ORDER re: 250 MOTION for New Trial . filed by SCA La Goutte, D'Or, 247 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law . filed by SCA La Goutte, D'Or. For the foregoing reasons, La Goutte's object ions to Plaintiff's proposed judgment, La Goutte's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and La Goutte's motion for a new trial and request for remittitur are DENIED. WHEREAS, a jury trial was held in the above-captioned action bef ore the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick, United States District Court Judge, commencing on February 17, 2022 and lasting ten (10) days; WHEREAS, after due deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Mario Rinaldi ("Plaintiff ") in this action in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00); WHEREAS, Plaintiff is entitled under New York law to prejudgment interest of 9% per annum running from February 12, 2016 in the amount of Eig ht Hundred Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars and 85/100 ($818,506.85); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1961; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff Mario Ri naldi has judgment against Defendant SCA La Goutte d'Or in the amount of Two Million Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars and 85/100 ($2,318,506.85) in addition to any applicable post-judgment interest. The Clerk of Cour t is respectfully directed to (1) terminate any open motions, (2) enter an amended judgment including interest in accordance with this Order, and (3) close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/2/2022) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
269
ORDER: On October 11, 2022, I received a letter mailed to my chambers from Plaintiff Mario Rinaldi inquiring about the status of his case. A copy of the letter is enclosed. Defendants' post-trial motions remain under advisement. (Docs. 247, 250. ) Because Mr. Rinaldi is represented by counsel in this matter, Mr. Rinaldi may not contact my chambers ex parte and must direct all future communications to the Court via his lawyers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 10/13/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
263
ORDER with respect to 247 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; with respect to 250 Motion for New Trial. It is hereby ORDERED that on or before July 26, 2022, La Goutte submit a memorandum addressing the following questions: 1. Would a re asonable jury have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that the contract between Rinaldi and La Goutte was not terminable at will? If so, please cite the testimony and/or documents that form that evidentiary basis. a. Would a reasonable ju ry have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that the contract between Rinaldi and La Goutte had a definite duration, and if so, what was the duration? If so, please cite the testimony and/or documents that form that evidentiary basis. b. W ould a reasonable jury have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Rinaldi and La Goutte expressly and unequivocally agreed that they would be perpetually bound by the contract? If so, please cite the testimony and/or documents that form that evidentiary basis. 2. If the jury found that the contract between Rinaldi and La Goutte was terminable at will, would a reasonable jury have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that La Goutte nevertheless breached the contract? If so , please cite the legal support for this finding, and the testimony and/or documents that form that evidentiary basis. 3. Would I have authority to grant judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the contract between Rinaldi and La Goutte was t erminable at will, even though La Goutte did not raise the issue in its Rule 50 motions? IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rinaldi submit any reply to La Goutte's memorandum on or before August 2, 2022. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appe ar for oral argument on August 9, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 518, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007. The parties should be prepared to discuss, among other things, the following questions: 1. Questio n for La Goutte: If the jury credited testimony that the parties operated with a "gap" or delay in payments, could a reasonable jury have also found that La Goutte constructively discharged Rinaldi from the contract before Rinaldi's pa yments ultimately came due? 2. Question for La Goutte: While Defendant argues based on case law that in a consignment relationship, "after a sale, the supplier should be paid from that sale in full, with an accounting kept by the consignee," ; (Doc. 261, at 3), could a reasonable jury nevertheless have found that one-time payment in full and provision of sales records were not elements of the parties' oral contract? a. Where in the record is there evidence that the parties agreed th at Defendant be paid from sales in full and that Rinaldi would provide an accounting? b. Can a party waive certain aspects of a consignment relationship, and could the jury have found such a waiver to the extent the parties oral contact envisioned pa yment from sales in full and the provision of sales records? 3. Question for Rinaldi: Plaintiff argues, "The jury easily could have arrived at its final number by crediting the analysis while disagreeing with some component of the model presente d by Plaintiff." (Doc. 255, at 1.) What specific component(s) of the model, if rejected, might have led a reasonable jury to arrive at a $1.5 million damages calculation, rather than the $3.3 million to $3.7 million model calculat ion advanced by Plaintiff's expert? While the parties' post-trial briefings already generally address the above issues, if the parties wish to submit further briefing, La Goutte may do so on or before July 26, 2022, and Rinaldi may do so on or before August 2, 2022. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 7/11/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
246
JUDGMENT: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff Mario Rinaldi has judgment against Defendant SCA La Goutte dOr in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00), in addition to any applicable post -judgment interest. Because the calculation of pre-judgment interest is the subject of pending briefing, the Judgment will be amended as necessary to reflect the amount of any applicable pre-judgment interest once the issue is resolved. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 3/29/2022) (jca)
|
|
Filing
237
ORDER granting 234 Letter Motion to Seal. APPLICATION GRANTED. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 3/14/2022) (ks)
|
|
Filing
233
ORDER re: 232 Proposed Judgment filed by Mario Rinaldi, USA Wine Imports, Inc.. I am in receipt of Plaintiff's Proposed Judgment. (Doc. 232.) Accordingly, Defendants are hereby directed to file any objections to Plaintiff's Propo sed Judgment on or before March 16, 2022. Any objection, or lack thereof, could not be used as evidence of a concession and would be made without prejudice to any motion later filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 3/10/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
209
ORDER re: 204 Notice (Other) filed by SCA La Goutte, D'Or, 189 Transcript. Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiffs SCA La Goutte D'Or and SAS Ch. & A. Prieur ("Defendants") filed a Notice of Intent to Request Redactions on Fe bruary 11, 2022 (Dkt. 204), for the transcript of proceedings held before this Court on January 21, 2022 (Dkt. 189). Defendants' request for an extension of time to file their Redaction Request is GRANTED, and Defendants are hereby ordered to file their Redaction Request on March 11, 2022. SO ORDERED. Set Transcript Deadlines re 204 Notice (Other), 189 Transcript,, :( Redaction Request due 3/11/2022.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/24/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
208
ORDER, I am in receipt of the parties joint list of trial demonstrative exhibits and objections. (Doc. 207.) The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a conference before the Court on the aforementioned objections tomorrow, February 17, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., prior to the beginning of jury selection in this trial, at 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11D, New York, New York. The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to provide the Court with electronic copies of their demonstrative exhibits via email to Bro derickNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov by the end of the day today, February 16, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 2/17/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/16/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
205
OPINION AND ORDER re: 192 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION for Pre-Trial Request for Remote Testimony with Declaration. filed by SCA La Goutte, D'Or, 191 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION for Pre-Trial Request for Remote Testimony. filed by SCA La Goutte, D'Or. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for an order allowing Isabelle Grzeszezak to testify at trial remotely from France by videoconferencing technology is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavels at Docs. 191 and 192. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/12/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
188
ORDER: I have learned that, based on a new safety protocol, no one may unmask in the courtroomeven in the HEPA-filter-outfitted witness and attorney boxesunless they have tested negative for COVID-19 using an approved molecular diagnostic test. (A ntigen tests are not approved.) If a person will be removing his or her mask on successive days, the person may test on an every-other-day schedule; otherwise, the speaker must test negative on the day of his or her appearance. If a speaker has had a confirmed case of COVID-19 within the prior ninety days (verified by either a doctor's note or a viral test result), he or she will be exempted from these testing requirements. Confirmation of negative test results (or of a prior case of COVID- 19) must be provided to the Court through its staff. This new policy will be in effect when trial begins on Thursday, February 17, 2022, and applies to all witnesses and counsel who intend to speak without a mask. Counsel should make adequate prepar ations to comply with these requirements before trial starts. I will not delay the start of the proceedings on account of this new policy. Since this is a jury trial and the jury will be tasked with making credibility determinations, counsel should m eet and confer concerning any witness who intends to testify with a mask to determine if their adversary has an objection, and the parties should file a letter briefing any such objection, supported by legal authority, on or before February 10, 2022. The following is a list of the tests that are approved: PCR / RT-PCR / ddPCR / Rapid PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) NAA / NAAT (Nucleic Acid Amplification) AMP PRB (Amplified Probe) LAMP (Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification) Accepted molecu lar diagnostic test brands, including but not limited to: o Abbott ID NOW o Quidel Lyra PCR o Abbott Realtime PCR o Cobas Qualitative PCR o FTD PCR o Xpert Xpress o Simplexa Direct PCR o RUCDR Infinite Biologics o Lucira Health The following are test s that are NOT approved: All tests that do not have FDA authorization or approval All Antigen (Ag) tests (including but not limited to Quidel Sophia, Abbott BinaxNOW and Rapid Antigen Tests) All Antibody tests (such as IgG, IgA, IgM and Rapid Anti body Tests) All blood tests (such as fingerstick, venipuncture) All plasma tests All serum tests All lateral flow tests Any doctor's note If counsel have any questions or need assistance (either procuring an approved test or arranging for a location within the courthouse to perform a test), they should email covid_response@nysd.uscourts.gov. If needed, the Court has tests that can be made available to the parties free-of-charge and that can be taken one hour prior to the scheduled appearance time, provided that there is 24-hours' notice sent to the Covid Response email. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/3/2022) (kv)
|
|
Filing
184
ORDER: Today, I held a conference in this case. In accordance with my comments made during the conference, by on or before February 4, 2022, Defendants are directed to file any motion and supplemental evidence in support of their request that one of their witnesses be permitted to testify remotely. Both parties are further directed to file on ECF any materials previously emailed to my chambers concerning the aforementioned request, under seal and/or redacted as necessary. SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 2/4/2022.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 1/21/2022) (mml)
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER, It is hereby ORDERED that the conference will be held via telephone, using the dial-in 888-363- 4749 and the access code 2682448. On December 2, 2021, I also ordered that, on or before January 13, 2022, the parties submit the joint pretrial materials required by Rule 6 of my Individual Rules & Practices. (Doc. 171.) However, the parties may have more time to submit a list of any demonstratives. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 15, 2022, the parties submit a list by ea ch party of any demonstratives to be offered in their case in chief, with an indication by demonstrative number as to whether any party objects to the demonstrative. The party objecting must include a brief statement that makes clear the basis for its objection and must provide any necessary supporting authority. SO ORDERED. ( Telephone Conference set for 1/21/2022 at 10:30 AM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 1/12/22) (yv)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER re: 172 Scheduling Order. On December 10, 2021, I ordered a status conference in this matter will be held on December 14, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. regarding the parties positions for trial. (Doc. 172.) It is hereby ORDERED that the conference will be held via telephone, using the dial-in 888-363- 4749 and the access code 2682448. SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 12/14/2021 at 03:00 PM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 12/14/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER: Today, I held a conference in this case. In accordance with my comments made during the conference, by on or before September 24, 2021, counsel for the parties are directed to confer with their clients, meet and confer with each other, and f ile a joint status letter informing me whether: (1) they would like to be removed from the trial standby list for October 2021; (2) they would like to submit a trial request for the first or second quarter of 2022; and (3) they are amenable to a bench trial SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/9/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
161
ORDER: The parties requested that a trial in this case be set for October 1122, 2021. (Doc. 155.) Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear for a telephone conference before the Court on Wednesday, September 8, 2021, at 4:00 p.m. to discuss this further. The dial-in is (888) 363-4749, and the access code is 2682448. ( Telephone Conference set for 9/8/2021 at 04:00 PM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/1/2021) (ate)
|
|
Filing
150
ORDER: I am in receipt of the parties' February 26, 2021 joint letter indicating potential trial dates for the above-captioned litigation. (Doc. 149.) Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that this case is tentatively scheduled for a n eight to ten-day jury trial beginning on July 12, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. While these dates are subject to change, particularly in light of the public health situation, the parties are directed to be trial ready on that date. IT IS FURTHER O RDERED that the parties shall appear for a final pretrial conference on July 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. I will submit an order closer to that date regarding the logistics for that conference. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/1/2021 at 11:00 AM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick., Jury Trial set for 7/12/2021 at 10:00 AM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 3/16/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER: Today, I held a telephone conference to discuss potential trial dates. The parties are directed to meet and confer about potential trial dates after June 2021. Additionally, the parties are to meet and confer about proposed procedures for the trial, including whether the trial will be conducted in person, remotely, or partially remotely. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, by February 26, 2021, the parties are to file a joint letter with proposed trial dates after June 2021 and proposed procedures for the trial. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/12/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER: I am in receipt of the parties letters regarding proposed trial dates. (Docs. 144, 145.) The parties are directed to appear for a telephone conference before the Court on Thursday, February 11, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to discuss potential trial dates. The parties should be prepared to discuss potential trial dates after June 30, 2021. The dial-in is (888) 363-4749, and the access code is 2682448, Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the parties appear for a telephone conference on February 11, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., (Telephone Conference set for 2/11/2021 at 02:30 PM before Judge Vernon S. Broderick.) (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 2/1/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
143
ORDER: I am in receipt of the parties' pre-trial submissions. (Docs. 114, 116124, 126, 127, 129 137, 140.) The parties are directed to notify the Court of proposed trial dates between April and June 30, 2021. The Court will then schedule a pre-trial conference. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that by January 27, 2021, the parties submit proposed trial dates between April and June 30, 2021. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 1/25/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
108
OPINION & ORDER re: 103 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to FRCP 12(c) - refiled pursuant to Clerk's instructions. filed by SCA La Goutte, D'Or, Sas Ch. & A. Prieur. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants& #039; motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, and is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contractual relations, unfair competitio n, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contractual relations, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel are DISMISSED. The Clerk's Office is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Document 103. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 9/9/2020) (rro)
|
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.
