Dardashtian et al v. Gitman et al
Plaintiff: Michael Dardashtian
Defendant: David Gitman, Jeremy Falk, Summit Rock Holdings, LLC, Accel Commerce, LLC, Dalva Ventures, LLC, Konstantyn Bagaev, Olesksii Glukharev and Channel Reply, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2017cv04327
Filed: June 8, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: James C. Francis
Presiding Judge: Louis L. Stanton
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 1, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 215 ORDER: As the District Court Judge has adopted this Courts Report and Recommendation and has referred to me the determination of the Purchase Price, the Court will hold a short hearing (in no event longer than three hours), conducted virtually, at w hich Defendants may cross-examine (and Plaintiffs may re-direct) in regard to the expert declaration already accepted by the Court. My Deputy Clerk will coordinate scheduling with counsel. With respect to the two counterclaim issues remaining after summary judgment, the parties shall adhere to Judge Stantons rules for further proceedings.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 4/1/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (mml)
March 30, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 214 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 180 FIRST MOTION for Summary Judgment and 209 Report and Recommendations: This Court adopts Judge Lehrburger's Report and Recommendation in its entirety; 1. Summary judgment is granted to plaintiffs on Counts Tw o, Five, Seven, Ten, Twelve, Eighteen, Nineteen, and Twenty of the Amended Complaint, except with respect to the purchase price for redemption under Count Twenty. 2. Defendant David Gitman is permanently removed as co-manager of the plaintiff compani es. 3. Determination of the purchase price for redemption of defendant David Gitman's interests in the plaintiff companies, pursuant to Section 11.5 of the CSV Operating Agreement, is referred to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for his report and re commendation. 4. Summary judgment is granted to plaintiffs dismissing all of defendants' Counterclaims First through Ninth, except denied with respect to the Second Counterclaim for Gitman's individual claim for breach of fiduciary duty, li mited solely to the issue of the propriety of Dardashtian's receipt of health insurance and $10,000 in distributions. 6. Defendants' request for a jury trial is stricken as contractually waived pursuant to Section 17.9 of the CSV Operating Agreement. 7. Summary judgment is denied as premature without prejudice as to plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 3/30/21) (ml)
February 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 207 ORDER: In advance of oral argument on February 11, 2021, the Court provides advance notice to the parties, particularly Plaintiffs, of an issue for which the Court would like clarification and which may require some investigation prior to argumen t. Specifically, regarding evidence of 401(k) contributions: How does check no. 52 (Ex. 149(a) at 5) show that Gitman received a $13,500 401(k) contribution in 2013? Why is the check made out to Pershing LLC FBO Cooper Square Ventures, LLC, i nstead of David Gitman CSV 401k, which is how Dardashtian's check (no. 51) appears? Why is check no. 52 stamped "void"? (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/5/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (mml)
January 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 206 ORDER: As discussed and ordered during the conference held on January 22, 2021, in light of the charging lien asserted by Mr. Gitman's former counsel, current defense counsel of record shall not withdraw from defense counsels escrow fund any monies received on behalf of Mr. Gitman or any related person or entity that was distributed or received from CSV or its subsidiaries, unless and until approved by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/22/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (mml)
July 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 172 ORDER: that matters raised in defendants' July 10, 2020 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order (Dkt. 163, 163-1, 163-2, 163-3, 163-4) and plaintiffs' Cross Motion (Dkt. 167, 167-1, 167-2, 167-3, 167-4, 167-5, 167-6) that have not recen tly been disposed of, are disposed as follows: 1. Defendants' request for "reversal of the Magistrate Judge's order and permitting the use of the Rebuttal Expert Report and expert" (Dkt 163) is denied. Magistrate Judge Lehrburger is performing admirably, under challenging conditions, in managing the general pretrial matters in this case. His July 3, 2020 Order, like his similar one on June 8, was well within his jurisdiction, was not an error of fact or law, and will not be disturbed. Judge Lehrburger's orders were not in limine or otherwise made in connection with the trial, and Mr. Kuczmarski' s Report gives warning that its contents may be used effectively in cross-examination at trial. 2. Plaintiffs' request for counsel fees and expenses incurred in opposing defendants' Objection is denied. 3. Plaintiffs' request for sanctions, primarily based on defendants' claimed "direct violation of the DiscoveryConfidentiality Order by Consent entered September 11, 2019" is denied. The protection of confidential treatment, between parties engaged in discovery, has no effect on items submitted to a court to inform and affect a judicial determination. The considerations are enti rely different. The public has littleconcern with private arrangements between litigants to obtain and use matter sensitive to the parties in a non-public way. The public has a powerful and highly principled right to be informed for the basis for cou rt judgments, as part of open court processes. A dispute brought to court is disclosed and determined publicly, as a matter of high policy. If the court is to decide a question of valuation, the evidence of the asset's worth is publicly disclosed as part of the process. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 7/17/2020) (ml)
July 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 169 ORDER re: 167 FIRST LETTER MOTION to Seal: Plaintiffs' letter of July 14, 2020 (Dkt. 167-1) seeks the sealing of Exhibits A and B to defendants' July 10 Objection and paragraphs 26-32 of defendants' memorandum of law be removedfr om the public docket (id. p.7), as containing "highly sensitive confidential records of the Plaintiff Companies" and references to "sensitive and confidential business records " The application is denied. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 7/16/2020) (ml)
July 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 162 ORDER: This order addresses Plaintiffs application to bar the expert report and testimony of Defendants proffered expert Justin Kuczmarski, of Valuation and Advisory, LLC. (Dkt. 159.) The Court has considered the application, along with Defendants response (Dkt. 160), and the prior proceedings of this Court. Expert discovery has closed. Plaintiffs application is granted. Defendants expert rebuttal report is stricken. Of course, this ruling does not preclude Defendants from continuing to use Mr. Kuczmarski in a consulting capacity. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 7-3-2020) (rsh)
July 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 161 ORDER: In light of the parties' recent correspondence to the Court concerning the propriety of Defendants proffered expert report, by July 7, 2020, the parties shall submit to the Court for in camera review Plaintiffs' expert report an d Defendants' "rebuttal" report. No redactions are necessary. The parties shall submit the reports by email to the Court's chambers' email address. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 7/1/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record by Chambers. (ks)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dardashtian et al v. Gitman et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Dardashtian
Represented By: Barry Scott Guaglardi
Represented By: Barry Scott Guaglardi
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 ]
Defendant: David Gitman
Represented By: Brian Scott Cousin
Represented By: Lindsay Faye Ditlow
Represented By: Mark Douglas Meredith
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 ]
Defendant: Jeremy Falk
Represented By: Joaquin Javier Ezcurra
Represented By: Edward Paul Gilbert
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 ]
Defendant: Summit Rock Holdings, LLC
Represented By: Joaquin Javier Ezcurra
Represented By: Edward Paul Gilbert
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 ]
Defendant: Accel Commerce, LLC
Represented By: Lindsay Faye Ditlow
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 ]
Defendant: Dalva Ventures, LLC
Represented By: Brian Scott Cousin
Represented By: Lindsay Faye Ditlow
Represented By: Mark Douglas Meredith
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 ]
Defendant: Konstantyn Bagaev
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 ]
Defendant: Olesksii Glukharev
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 ]
Defendant: Channel Reply, Inc.
Represented By: Brian Scott Cousin
Represented By: Lindsay Faye Ditlow
Represented By: Mark Douglas Meredith
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.


Why Is My Information Online?