RVW Prods. Corp. v Levin

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

RVW Prods. Corp. v Levin 2019 NY Slip Op 32937(U) October 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 655390/2018 Judge: Andrea Masley Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT:. PART HON. ANDREA MASLEY ·IAS MOTION 48EFM Justice -----------------------------------------------------~---------------------------X RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION and RVW FILMS LLC, 655390/2018 INDEX NO. MOTION DATE .. MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0-"-02_00_3_ _ Plaintiff, -vJOHN LEVIN, ROBERT DISCOLO, RIVER PARTNERS . CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, LEVIN CAPITAL STRATEGIES LP, JOHN LEVIN & COMPANY, ZACHARY TARICA, FOREST ROAD COMPANY LLC, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, and ABC ENTITIES 1-10 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X -. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 10, 11, 12, _13, 14, 15, 16,23,24,25,28, 30, 34, 35, 36 DISMISSAL were read on this motion to/for The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37 were read on this motion to/for DISMISSAL Masley, J.:' In motion sequence number 002, defendants Zachary Tarica and Forest Road Company LLC (Forest Road) (collectively, Forest Defenda.nts) move, pursuant' to CPLR 3211 (a) (1)_and (7), to dismiss the complaint. In motion sequence number 003, defendants John Levin, Robert Discolo, River Partners Capital Management LP (River Partners), Levin Capital Strategies LP (Levin-Capital), and John Levin & Company (Levin Co) (the entities collectively, Levin Companies) move, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), to dismiss the complaint. 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 1 of 14 · Page 1of14 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 655390/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 Background The following facts are alleged in the complaint unless otherwise noted, and for purposes of these motions, are accepted as true. Plaintiff RVW Produ.ctions Corporation (RVW) is a Louisiana corporation that produces movies, including the movie at issue here (Movie); nonparty Cathy Beckerman is RVW's principal (NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 24, Complaint, ,-m 1, 16). There are several unidentified individuals and corporate entities that also have an ownership interest in RVW including the co-writer of the script for the Movie and one of the producers of the Movie, employed as SAG actor with RVW Productions (Producer) (id.; ,-r 16). Plaintiff RVW Films, LLC (RVW Films) is a Delaware limited liability company · engaged in the business of writing film scripts, including the Movie (id., ,-r 2). Defendant Forest Road, a New York limited liability company, is engaged in the business of lending money (id., ,-r 9). Defendant Tarica is the Chief Executive Officer of - ' Forest Road (id., ,-r 8). Defendant River Partners, a New York limited partnership, is in the business of private f_und management (id., ,-r 5); defendants Levin Capit~I and Levin · Co, a New York partnership and New York corporation respectively, are both engaged in the business of investment management (id., ,-r,-r 6, 7). John Levin and Robert Discolo are principles of the Levin Companies (id., ,-r 3, 4). · On April 7, 2018, at Beckerman's request, the Producer contacted Levin about becoming an equity investor in the Movie; Levin declined because "'his wife would kill him' due to the perceived political leanings of the subject matter" (id., 1f18). · Nevertheless, Levin requested an investment deck and the Movie's script, both of which '' 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 ' 2 of 14 Page 2of14 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 655390/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 were sent to him via email on April 8, 2018 (id., 'IT 19). RVW ultimately obtained '< financing for the Movie from other sources (id., 'IT 20). As customary for movies in production in Louisiana, RVW sought a loan against the Louisiana tax credit offered (id., '/l 21.) Some of the equity previously committed to the Movie, as well as the post-production financing loan, was contingent on RVW closing a loan against the tax credit (id., '/l 22.) In May 2018, RVW sought tax credit funding for the Movie's production from Forest Road (id., '/l 23). Over the course of a few weeks, Beckerman and Tarica negotiated the terms of the tax credit loan agreement (Loan) (id., '/l 24.) RVW and Forest Road came to an agreement on the terms of the Loan and a closing was scheduled for June 28, 2018 (id., '/l'/l 25, 29). During a meeting with the Producer on May 22, 2019, Tarica learned that ~he Producer knew Levin and Discolo (id., '1127). Tarica informed plaintiffs that Levin, Discolo, and the Levin Companies were the majority investors in Forest Road (id.), Plaintiff would later learn, from both Discolo-and Levin, that Discolo, .Levin, and the ' - Levin Companies were never investors in Forest Road (id., '/l 30). ) From May 22, 201.8 through June 29, 2018, the day after the Loan was to close, Tarica repeatedly re-affirmed Forest Road's commitment to the Loan, so RVW prepared as though the Loan would close (id., '/l 26). During this period, Tarica also reaffirmed Levin's shareholder status to plaintiffs via phone and emails (id., '/l 29). As the closing date got closer, Tarica asked for substantial amounts of information not normally requested for the type of loan sought; RVW provided the requested information, but Tarica continued to request more (id., '/l 32). When plaintiffs asked Tarica why he needed such information, he told them that Levin and Discolo insisted that it be 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 - 3 of 14 Page 3of14 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 provided because they were to make the ultimate decision on the issuance of the Loan (id., 1134). Recognizing that these requests were unusual, RVW looked for other funding (id., 33). Tarica learned of such efforts and assured plaintiffs that the Loan would close and instructed them not to contact other lenders (id., 11 33). On June 28, 2018, the day of the closing, and when RVW's payroll was due, Beckerman, the Producer, Levin, and Discolo had a phone call where Levin suggested that the Levin Companies fund the loan money on better terms than Forest Road (id., 11 ,,-38). Plaintiffs provided due diligence documentation immediately, and within hours, . Discolo contacted plaintiffs to inform them that Levin was going to personally fund the Loan at 9%, a 1% discount from Forest Road (id., 1111 39, 40). Discolo also said that he . . . would wire the first $500,000 that day, and that he needed wiring instructions (id., 1140.) After the instructions were sent, Levin called the Producer and said that Forest Road was not going lend the money because Tarica had an unpleasant experience with the Producer; Levin then informed the Prqducer that that he also could not loan the money personally (id., 111141, 42). (. I Beckerman called Tarica about what Levin told the Producer, but Tarica disputed Levin's account and re-affirmed his commitment to the Loan, assuring RVW that the Loan would close the next day, June 29, 2018 (id., 111143! 44). T~rica asked that ' Beckerman and the Producer not speak to Levin or Discolo going forward (id., 1144).· The next day, Forest Road informed RVW that it could not do the Loan, refusing to disclose to RVW the reason(s) why (id., 1145). RVW claims that defendants' actions were intended to string plaintiffs along until the worst possible moment so that they could not get another loan before being 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 4 of 14 Page 4 of-14 I [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM I. INDEX NO. 655390/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 severely damaged (id., 1147). The delay and inability to obtain a tax credit loan. caused RVW to lose at least $1.5 million in equity investments and hundreds of thousands of· dollars in post-production financing (id., 1156). Plaintiffs commenced this action against for: (1) tortious interference with business relations and/or prospective business relations (against all defendants); (2) fraud (against all .defendants); (3) breach of contract (against Forest Defendants); (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against Forest Defendants); (5) misrepresentation (against all defendants); and (6) civil conspiracy (against all defendants)~ Defendants move to dismiss all claims pursuant to CPLR 3211. Discussion Motion to Dismiss Standard ) "On.a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction. [The court] accept[s] the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, [and] accord[s] plaintiff [ ] the ben·efit of every possible favorable inference" (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994] [citation omitted]). However, bare legal 1· conclusions and "factual claims which are either. inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence" are not "accorded their most favorable intendment" (Summit Solomon & Feldesman v Lacher, 212 AD2d 487, 487 [1st Dept 1995]). Dismissal under subsection (a) (1) is warranted where the documentary evidence "conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law" (Leon, 84 NY2d at 88). 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 5 of 14 ' Page 5of14 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 655390/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 Breach of Contract "To state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege: ( 1) .the parties · entered into a valid agreement, (2) plaintiff performed, (3) defendant failed to perform, and (4) damages" (VisionChina Media Inc. v Shareholder Representative Servs., LLC, 109 AD3d 49, 58 [1st Dept 2013] [citation omitted]). When it is alleged that a purported oral agreement was breached, "plaintiff should specifically state that he is relying upon an 'oral agreement' and he should set forth all the relevant terms of that oral agreement" (Bomser v Moyle, 89 AD2d 202, 205 [1st Dept 1982]). Plaintiff alleges that "RVW Productions and Forest Road came to an agreement on the terms of the Loan, and a closing was scheduled" (NYSCEF ~ 25). There is no allegation that this agreement was reduced to writing. Instead, plaintiffs submit a text message sent by Tarica, which states "discuss 1. Status update 2. What you are doing with Post 3. CAMA execution - new terms are fine, just need sr lender name to be changed to junior senior lender 4. Mezz execution (need that lender to sigr:i something ' . acknowledging that we are senior to him) 5. Terms: a. 10% yr 1,2,4,6,8 quarterly agreed to change year 3 to 10 (per comments) b. backend agreed 2% c. loan amount $1,544, 169 6. Execution of PG from Nick Loeb" (NYSCEF 25, Tarica Text Message). As a matter of law, this text message is not a binding written agreement. The text lists items to "discuss" including contract terms. Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, and absent any other evidence, it appears that any alleged agreement was oral. Thus, plaintiffs niust specifically state that and set forth the relevant terms of the oral agreement in order to . successful plead the existence of a contract (Bomser, 89 AD2d at 205), or alternative, 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 6 of 14 Page 6of14 [*FILED: 7] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 allege the.existence of a written agreer:ient, other than the text message, which is not . an agreement at all. Plaintiffs' claim for breach ofcontract is dismissed with leave to rep lead. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing "There can be no claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing without a contract" (Randall's Is. Aquatic Leisure, LLC v City of New York, 92 AD3d 463, 463 [1st Dept 2012] [citation omitted]). Here, plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege the existence of a contract, and thus, this claim is dismissed. However, plaintiffs have leave to replead this cause of action, provided that they sufficiently alleged, not only existence of a contract, but also "facts which tend to show that the defendant sought to prevent performance of the contract or to withhold its . benefits from the plaintiff" (Aventine Inv. Mgmt., Inc. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 265 AD2d 513, 514 [1st Dept 1999] [citation omitted]). The claim may not depend of the same allegations of .the breach of contract claim should· plaintiffs rep lead· that claim (Engelhardt v Abraham, 2011 NY Slip Op 33907[l_}], *13 [Sup Ct,· NY County 2011]). Tortious Interference Claim of Tortious Interference with Contract "A claim of tortious interference with contract requires: (1) the existence of a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party, (2) defendant's knowledge of the contract, (3) defendant's intentional procurement of a breach of the contra.ct without justification, (4) actual breach of the contract, and (5) resulting damages" (American Preferred Prescription v Health Mgt., 252 AD2d 414, 417 [1st Dept 1998] [citation omitted]). First, 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 7 of 14 Page 7of14 ( [*FILED: 8] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 this claim cannot stand against the Forest Defendants as there must be an existence of a valid contract b.etween a plaintiff and a third party. Second, .any claim that the Levin Defendants (Levin, Discolo and .the Levin Companies) interfered with a contract between plaintiffs and the Forest Defendants must be dismissed as plaintiffs have not sufficiently plead the existence of a valid contract. However, as to the Levin Defendants, plaintiffs are granted to leave to rep lead if they sufficiently alleged a valid contract. Claim of Tortious Interference with a Prospective or Existing Business Relationship "To make out a claim for tortious interference with busine~s relationships, a plaintiff must show that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's business relationships either with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff, or by means that were unlawful or improper" (71 Pierrepont Assocs. v 71 Pierrepont Corp ..• 243 AD2d 625, 626 [2d Dept 1997] [citations omitted]). Plaintiffs allege that, due to Levin and Discolo's political opinions and personal ·animus, they used their influence over the Levin Companies to tortiously interfere with the business relations between plaintiffs and the Forest Defendants, knowing failure to (· secure the Loan would be extremely harmful to the production of the Movie (NYSCEF 24, ,.m 62-64). Plaintiffs further allege that Levin and Discolo contacted Forest Road with the express purpose of killing the Loan and inflicting as much damage as possible·. to plaintiffs (id., ,-i 63). ·At this stage, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Levin Defendants interfered with plaintiffs' business relationship with the Forest Defendants for the sole purpose of .intentionally harming the plaintiffs. 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 8 of 14 Page 8of14 ,I [*FILED: 9] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 "To state a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relations, a plaintiff must allege: "(1) the existence of a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party;. (2) the defendants' interference with that business relationship; (3) that the defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff or used dishonest, unfair, improper, or illegal means that amounted to a crime or independent tort; and (4) that such acts resulted in injury to the plaintiff's relationship with the third party" (Schorr v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 44 AD3d 319, 323 [1st Dept 2007] [citations omitted]). \ Plaintiffs allege that the Forest Defendants tortiously interfered with plaintiffs' prospective business advantages by "making misrepresentations regarding other potential loans" (id., 1J 66). Besides this conclusory allegation, plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege which lenders the Forest Defendants interfered with and that the interference was with the sole purpose of harming the plaintiff, or by means that were· unlawful or improper (Liberty v Coursey, 2016 NY Slip Op 31940[U], *1~ [Sup Ct, NY County 2016], citing Parekh v Cain, 96 AD3d 812,816 [2.9 Dept 2012]). Thus, this claim is dismissed as to the Forest Defendants only. Fraud To state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege (1) "a representation of material fact"; (2) "the falsity of the representation"; (3) "knowledge by the party making the representation that it was false when made"; (4) 'justifiable reliance by the plaintiff''; and (5) "resulting injury" (Kaufman v Cohen, 307 AD2d 113, 119 [1st Dept 2003] [citations omitted]). Pursuant to CPLR 3016, "[w]here a cause of action or defense is based upon misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, willful default, breach of trust or undue influence, the circumstances constituting the wrong ~hall be stated in detail." 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 9 of 14 Page 9of14 [*FILED: 10] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 Claim of Fraud Against Forest Defendants Plaintiffs alleges that "Tarica made a series of misrepresentations in May and June of 2018 to RVW Productions, including re-affirming that the Loan would close as promised, up until he told.RVW Productions on or about June 29, 2018 that Forest Road would not loan the money" (NYSCEF 24, 1J 73). Plaintiffs do not allege justifiable reliance. In fact, the allegatio_ns in the complaint contradict any claim ofjustifiable reliance, because plaintiffs allege that they found Tarica's i11tormation requests unusual, believed Tarica was dragging out the closing date, and sought other loan commitments (id., 1J1J 32, 33, 34, and 38). Plaintiffs cannot state that they justifiably relied on Tarica's alleged misrepresentation when they had admitted concerns and took actions to seek other lending .. Claim of Fraud Against Levin Defendants Plaintiffs allege that Levin and Discolo represen.ted material facts when they told plaintiffs on June 28 and June 29, 2018, that they would help facilitate the closing of the Loan; that Forest Road would not close on the Loan because of Its "unpleasant experience" with the Producer; and that the Levin Companies would fund the loan monies (id., 1J 70.) Additionally, Levin allegedly made intentional misrepresentations about the Levin Companies' interest in funding the Movie on April 7, 2018, when he told Plaintiffs that Levin would fund the ~oan at a 1% discount from the agreement with Forest Road (id., 1J 72.) Plaintiffs allege that such representations were false because 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 10 of 14 Page 10of14 [*FILED: 11] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 655390/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 Levin Defendants ·never intended to personally furnish the loan monies or help facilitate the :closing with Forest Road. Plaintiffs again fail to allege justifiable· reliance. Plaintiffs admittedly had · concerns about the Loan. Accordingly, they cannot simultaneously viably allege that they justifiably relied on the Levin Defendants' alleged conflicting misr~presentations that they would help facilitate the closing of the Loan; that plaintiffs should seek a loan from others; that Levin would make a loan, and, also, that the Loan.would not close. These conflicting statements alone negate any justifiable reliance. As to the alleged misrepresentations that Levin would fund the Loan, the first misrepresentation alleged was in April 2018, when subsequently Levin said he would not fund the Loan and plaintiff sought other funding, so plaintiffs cannot justifiably rely on that statement. Further, as to the misrepresentations allegedly made by the Levin Defendants on June .28, 2018, plaintiffs admit that Levin not only suggested that he . could fund the Loan but also suggested that one of the Producer's trusts fund the Loan (id.,~ 38). Plaintiffs cannot allege justifiable reliance when they were admittedly a~are of Levin's alleged back and forth in making a commitment to fund the Loan. 1 - The fraud cause of action is dismis.sed against all defendants. Misrepresentation "[T]o state a ·claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of "a misrepresentation of a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by the Defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material injury, and injury" (EVEMeta, LLC v Siemens Convergence Creators Corp., 2018 NY 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN . Motion No. 002 003 · 11 of 14 Page 11 of 14 [*FILED: 12] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM INDEX NO. 655390/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 Slip Op 32530[U], *13-14 [Sup Ct, NY County 2018] [citation omitted]) .. Plaintiffs' claim for misrepresentation is based on the same allegations as their fraud claim, ?Ind thus for the reasons stated above, this claim is als.o dismissed. Civil Conspiracy · Plaintiffs claim that "[d]efendants .. ~ act[ed] in concert together, and agree[d] among themselves, to cause injury and damage to and commit unlawful acts against Plaintiffs, namely: to pull funding of the Movie at the last possible moment with the express purpose of inflicting maximum harm to Plaintiffs and the Movie" (NYSCEF 24, 1[ 16). "[T]o establish a claim of civil conspiracy, the plaintiff 'must demonstrate the . primary tort, plus the following four elements: (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; (3) the parties' intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose; and (4) resulting damage or injury" (Abacus Fed. Sav. Bankv Lim, 75 AD3d 472, 474 [1st Dept 201 O] [citation omitted]). Civil conspiracy is not recognized as an independent tort. Plaintiff's civil c~nspiracy claim is inadequately pleaded. Plaintiffs only asserts conclusory allegations that defendants knowingly participated in a conspiracy.· Plaintiff sets forth no allegations which illustrate an agreement to conspire. Merely alleging that Discolo and Levin I influenced Tarica to not furnish the Loan is insufficient. The civil conspiracy claim is dismissed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants Zachary Tarica and Forest Road Compa_ny LLC's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted and the complaint is dismissed against said 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 12 of 14 · Page12of14 [*FILED: 13] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 defendants with leave to replead the third (breach of contract) and fourth (breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing) in accordc;ince with this dedsion within 30 days of e'ntry of the court's decision and order entry on NYSCEF; and it further ' ORDERED that defendants John Levin, Robert Discolo, River Partners Capital Management LP, Levin Capital Strategies LP, and John Levin~ Company's motion to · dismiss the complaint is granted in part and the first (only as to tortious interference with · contract), second (fraud), fifth (misrepresentation), and sixth (civil conspiracy) causes of action are dismissed and plaintiffs are granted with leave to replead the tortious interference with contract cause of action in accordance with this decision within 30 days of entry of the court's decision and order entry on NYSCEF; and it is ORDERED that, if plaintiffs fail to serve and e-file an amended complaint within. . . .30 days of entry of the court's decision and order entry on NYSCEF, leave to replead shall be deemed denied, and defendants' counsel is toe-file and email SFCPART48@nycourts.gov an affirmation attesting to such non-compliance; and it is further . ' 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 13 of 14 Page 13of14 [*FILED: 14] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2019 03:14 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39 INDEX NO. 655390/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2019 ORDERED that.defendants John Levin, Robert Discolo,_ River Partners Capital Management LP, Levin Capital Strategies LP, and John Levin & Company time to answer the first cause of action of this complaint is extended un.til 50 days of entry of the court's decision and order entry on NYSCEF. Motion Seq. No. 002 . D TS CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D NON-FIN~L DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART . SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT CASEDISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED D DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 655390/2018 RVW PRODUCTIONS CORPORATION vs. LEVIN, JOHN Motion No. 002 003 14 of 14 D D D D OTHER. REFERENCE OTHER REFERENCE Page 14of14

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.