![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
December 23, 2022, Decided; December 23, 2022, Filed
22 Civ. 8313 (VM)
DECISION AND ORDER
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Link Motion Inc. ("LKM") originally filed this action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County (the "State Court") alleging legal malpractice against defendants DLA Piper LLP (US) and Caryn G. Schechtman (together "DLA") and seeking, among other relief, damages. DLA removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a) ("Section 1441(a)") based on the Court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). (Dkt. No. 1.) In response, LKM filed the instant motion to remand the case to the State Court. (See "Motion," Dkt. No. 18; "LKM Brief," Dkt. No. 20; "Reply," Dkt. No. 23.) DLA opposes that motion. (See "Opposition," Dkt. No. 22.) Upon consideration of the submissions and the applicable legal authorities, and for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES LKM's motion to remand this case to the State Court.
In this action, LKM alleges legal malpractice by DLA stemming from its representation of LKM in another matter [*2] pending before this Court, Baliga v. Link Motion Inc., No. 18 Civ. 11642 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Baliga Action"). DLA briefly represented LKM when the Baliga Action was filed in December 2018.
The original complaint filed in the Baliga Action was styled as a verified shareholder derivative complaint and asserted various federal and state causes of action against LKM asserting securities fraud, as well as seeking the appointment of a receiver to prevent, among other things, further alleged "dissipation of [LKM] and its assets" and to "manage [LKM]'s operations." (Baliga Action, Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 36-37.)
DLA's representation was limited to nominally representing LKM when the Baliga Action was filed.1 Immediately after filing the Baliga Action on December 14, 2018, the plaintiff, Wayne Baliga ("Baliga"), sought, and the Court entered, an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and appointment of a receiver. (See id. Dkt. No. 7.) The Court further directed the parties to advise on whether the TRO should be converted into a preliminary injunction. (See id.) By stipulation, DLA did not oppose the preliminary injunction or imposition of a receiver. (Id. Dkt. Nos. 22-23.) On February 1, 2019, [*3] the Court entered an order granting the preliminary injunction and appointing the receiver, Robert Seiden (the "Receiver"). (Id. "Receiver Order," Dkt. No. 26.) In pertinent part, the Receiver Order allowed the Receiver to "assume full control of [LKM]," including "the power to commence, continue, join in, and/or control any action, suit, arbitration or proceeding of any kind or nature." (Id.)
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231240 *; 2022 WL 17884167
LINK MOTION INC., Plaintiff, - against- DLA PIPER LLP (US) and CARYN G. SCHECHTMAN, Defendants.
Prior History: Baliga v. Link Motion Inc., 385 F. Supp. 3d 212, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100214, 2019 WL 2536779 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2019)
state court, Receiver, federal court, federal law, removal, receivership, malpractice suit, federal issue, parties, preliminary injunction, questions, malpractice, appointment of a receiver, district court, Recommendation, federal-state, regulations, derivative, Exchange Act, hypothetical, disrupting, disputed, asserts, raises, supplemental jurisdiction, malpractice action, legal malpractice, federal system, shareholder, lawsuit