Love Funding Corporation v. Jones

Love Funding Corporation v. Jones

Plaintiff:	Love Funding Corporation
Defendant:	William E Jones, Jr.
Case Number:	1:2017cv07437
Filed:	September 28, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Jed S. Rakoff
Nature of Suit:	Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 4, 2017	Filing 21 OPINION AND ORDER: By letter motion dated November 30, 2017, defendant sought reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion for leave to seek Rule 11 sanctions, see Order dated Nov. 28, 2017. Defendant's motion does not identify any "controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, while the Court is not unsympathetic to the difficulties to which defendant has been put, the Court sees no basis to reconsider its prior determination. This, however, in no way excuses the somewhat cavalier approach that plaintiff's counsel has taken to this litigation. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 12/1/2017) (ap)
November 29, 2017	Filing 17 OPINION AND ORDER re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by William E Jones, Jr. The Court hereby holds that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim and therefore grants defendant's motion. Because the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it does not reach the question of whether plaintiff's claim must be arbitrated. If the Court had jurisdiction, however, it likely would have converted defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion to compel arbitration and granted that motion. Finally, defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is a closer call. The Court deems it sufficient at this point to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction while reserving the right, should this case be reinstated for any reason, to revisit the appropriateness of sanctions. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 11/28/17) (yv)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 4, 2017

Filing 21 OPINION AND ORDER: By letter motion dated November 30, 2017, defendant sought reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion for leave to seek Rule 11 sanctions, see Order dated Nov. 28, 2017. Defendant's motion does not identify any "controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Accordingly, while the Court is not unsympathetic to the difficulties to which defendant has been put, the Court sees no basis to reconsider its prior determination. This, however, in no way excuses the somewhat cavalier approach that plaintiff's counsel has taken to this litigation. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 12/1/2017) (ap)

November 29, 2017

Filing 17 OPINION AND ORDER re: 11 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by William E Jones, Jr. The Court hereby holds that it lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim and therefore grants defendant's motion. Because the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction, it does not reach the question of whether plaintiff's claim must be arbitrated. If the Court had jurisdiction, however, it likely would have converted defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion to compel arbitration and granted that motion. Finally, defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is a closer call. The Court deems it sufficient at this point to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction while reserving the right, should this case be reinstated for any reason, to revisit the appropriateness of sanctions. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 11/28/17) (yv)

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: Love Funding Corporation v. Jones
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Love Funding Corporation
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: William E Jones, Jr.
Represented By:	Michael Todd Parker
Represented By:	David Matthew Pohl
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?