FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/31/ :44 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/31/2015

Transcription

1 FILED NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 07/31/ PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/31/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU X R.S. RAGHAVENDRA, a/k/a RANDY S. RAGHAVENDRA, founder, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CLIENTS AGAINST DISHONEST ATTORENYS -against- Plaintiff, LOUIS D. STOBER, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS D. STOBER Jr. LLC, EDWARD A. BRILL, SUSAN D. FRIEDFEL, ALLISON L. MARTIN, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, DONNA P. FENN, JANE E. BOOTH, THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE, Defendants X Index No /2015 AFFIRMATION OF SUSAN D. FRIEDFEL IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SUSAN D. FRIEDFEL, under the penalty of perjury, hereby affirms 1. I am a member of the Bar of this Court and am associated with the firm Proskauer Rose LLP, counsel for myself, Edward A. Brill, Allison L. Martin, Proskauer Rose LLP ( Proskauer ) (collectively Proskauer Defendants ), Donna P. Fenn, Jane E. Booth, and The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (incorrectly named herein as The Trustees of Columbia University ) (collectively, Columbia Defendants ). As counsel for the Columbia and Proskauer Defendants, I am fully familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case and related cases as set forth herein.

2 2. I submit this affirmation pursuant to C.P.L.R. Section 2106 in support of the Proskauer and Columbia Defendants Order to Show Cause, which will be presented to the New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau on August 4, 2015 at 930 am. 3. By Order to Show Cause, Defendants respectfully move to (i) stay this proceeding until a decision has been issued on Defendant s Motion to Transfer Venue and until any transfer that may be ordered is complete; and (ii) transfer venue of this proceeding to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. 4. I requested Raghavendra and Stober s consent to transfer venue to New York County by on July 30, Stober, through his attorney, consented. Raghavendra refused to consent. A true and correct copy of the correspondence is annexed hereto as Exhibit I notified all parties that the Proskauer and Columbia Defendants would be making this application for an Order to Show Cause and a stay of the proceedings via on July 31, 2015, in accordance with Section 202.7(f) of the Uniform Rules of New York State Courts. A true and correct copy of this notice is annexed hereto as Exhibit On or about July 7, 2015, Plaintiff Randy S. Raghavendra commenced this action by filing a Complaint in the New York Supreme Court, County of Nassau, in Index No /2015. A true and correct copy of the Complaint and Summons is annexed hereto as Exhibit On or about July 22, 2015, Plaintiff served a copy of the Complaint and Summons upon the Columbia and Proskauer Defendants via hand delivery. 2

3 8. Plaintiff s Complaint in this action advances claims and issues that are significantly duplicative of the claims previously asserted against Columbia, Proskauer, and Brill in two related proceedings, both of which were brought in the New York Supreme Court, County of New York, under Index No /2011 (the 2011 action ) and Index No /2012 (the 2012 action ) respectively Action 9. On or about November 7, 2011, Plaintiff filed an action in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against Columbia, Louis D. Stober, and the Law Offices of Louis D. Stober ( Stober ) under Index No /2011. On or about August 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the 2011 action, asserting claims against Columbia, Proskauer, Brill and Stober. A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint filed in the 2011 action is annexed hereto as Exhibit On or about October 2, 2012, Columbia and Proskauer (along with Brill) each filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims against them in the Amended Complaint in the 2011 action. Stober separately filed a Motion to Dismiss. 11. On February 4, 2014, the Honorable Lucy Billings entered orders dismissing the Amended Complaint in the 2011 action. A true and correct copy of the February 4 Orders are annexed hereto as Exhibit 5. Plaintiff filed an appeal from this decision. 12. On May 5, 2015, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, issued an order affirming the dismissal of the Amended Complaint in the 2011 action. A true and correct copy of the May 5 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit 6. 3

4 13. On or about June 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff s motion is currently pending before the First Department Action 14. On or about July 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second Complaint, Index No /2012, with the New York Supreme Court, New York County, asserting claims against Columbia, Proskauer, and Stober. 15. On or about August 2, 2012, the parties stipulated that the Complaint in the 2012 would be deemed the Amended Complaint in the 2011 action, and that Plaintiff would withdraw the 2012 action. Plaintiff subsequently filed the Complaint in the 2012 action as the Amended Complaint in the 2011 action but did not withdraw the 2012 action Despite the stipulation and order to withdraw his claims, on or about April 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Order to Show Cause in the 2012 action, seeking, inter alia, an order of default judgment. 17. On May 8, 2013, Columbia and Proskauer filed a cross-motion to dismiss this case with prejudice and sanction Plaintiff for his failure to comply with the court s August 2, 2012 stipulation and order and for his frivolous motion practice, among other relief. 18. On or about January 31, 2014, Justice Billings issued an order denying Plaintiff s motions for a default judgment and related relief, and awarding sanctions against Plaintiff for needlessly prolonging the litigation. A true and correct copy of the January 31 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit 7. 4

5 19. Plaintiff filed an appeal from this decision. The appeal has been fully briefed and is scheduled for argument in the September term Action 20. Raghavendra also has a third action pending against Columbia in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, in Index No / On or about February 4, 2014, Justice Billings dismissed Plaintiff s Complaint. The First Department subsequently affirmed the dismissal on May 5, A true and correct copy of the May 5 Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which is currently pending. A Stay and Transfer of Venue Is Warranted. 23. Defendants filed this present Motion to Transfer Venue with due diligence. A stay of this action during the pendency of the Proskauer and Columbia Defendants motion will avoid the potential for inconsistent outcomes and conserve judicial resources. 24. Transfer of this case from Nassau County to New York County is warranted because the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change. C.P.L.R. 510(3). The interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer of venue because there are prior related actions pending in New York County. 25. New York County is also a more convenient forum for the following non-party witnesses Beth Perez, Sheila Hatami, and Julianne Apostolopoulos. 5

6 26. Ms. Perez is a former Proskauer attorney. She currently works as a Professional Development Manager at 31 West 53nd Street, New York, New York Upon information and belief, she resides in New York, New York. Ms. Perez was present during the negotiations of the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Columbia in 2009, upon which many of Plaintiff s claims are premised. She has knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2009 mediation, including any representations and statements (or lack thereof) allegedly made by the Columbia and Proskauer Defendants in connection with the Settlement Agreement. 27. Upon information and belief, Sheila Hatami works as an attorney at 788 Shrewsbury Avenue, Tinton Falls, New Jersey, which is over 70 miles from the Nassau County courthouse. Ms. Hatami was present during the negotiations of the Settlement Agreement in 2009, upon which many of Plaintiff s claims are premised. She has knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2009 mediation, including any representations and statements (or lack thereof) allegedly made by the Columbia and Proskauer Defendants in connection with the Settlement Agreement. 28. Julianne Apostolopoulos resides in New Jersey and works as an attorney at 7 College Avenue, New Brunswick, New Jersey, which is over 60 miles from the Nassau County courthouse. Ms. Apostolopoulos has knowledge the facts and circumstances pertaining to the federal court litigation and the 2011 and 2012 state court actions upon which many of Plaintiff s tort claims are allegedly premised. 6

7 29. Upon information and belief, none of these witnesses reside or work in Nassau County, and they would be greatly inconvenienced by having to travel from their jobs in Manhattan and New Jersey to Nassau County. Transfer of venue to New York County would save the witnesses time and travel costs. 30. Defendants have no information to suggest that the aforementioned witnesses would not voluntarily appear in response to a deposition or trial subpoena. 31. There has been no prior application for the relief sought herein. Dated July 31, 2015 New York, New York