Bit Parts

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a suit by an investor in two artist management companies was time-barred. Willensky v. Lederman, 13-CV-7026. In 1983 and 1984, Paul Willensky allegedly paid Samuel Lederman a total of $50,000 for 50% stakes in Ledco Management and Jorada Management. Willensky said he was enticed to invest when Lederman told him that the latter's clients included musicians Ian Hunter and Mick Ronson. In 1989, Willensky sued Lederman and the management companies in New York state court for fraud, misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty, but that court dismissed the suit. In 2013, Willensky filed suit against the same defendants in Manhattan federal court, again alleging financial mismanagement. The causes of action, which are subject to a six-year statute of limitations, included breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer, and conspiracy to commit fraud. The defendants argued that Willensky knew his claims had accrued back in 1989, when he filed the state court suit. Willensky countered the limitations period should be tolled because he didn't discover the full nature of his claims until recent years. He said he became “aware of [the] ongoing fraud” after reading “about multiple litigations by Defendant Lederman and others” that were related to monies Willensky claimed he should have received, including from the Meat Loaf Hits Out of Hell compilation album on the Cleveland International label. District Judge Kenneth M. Karas explained that equitable tolling may apply if “it would be unjust to allow a defendant to assert a statute of limitations defense” where “the defendant's affirmative wrongdoing ' produced the long delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the institution of the legal proceeding.” But Judge Karas noted, “First, by Plaintiff's own admission, any work Lederman performed that was relevant to the Cleveland [Entertainment] Action [Willensky had read about], other than filing the lawsuit itself, pre-dated Plaintiff's investment in Ledco and Jorada.” The district judge then found that Willensky's filing of the 1989 action “makes clear that Plaintiff was not 'induced by ' [D]efendant[s'] fraud, misrepresentations or deception' to delay the commencement of [his] action.”

Partnership Suit Against the Lumineers to Remain in New Jersey Court

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey decided that a lawsuit by a former band member of The Lumineers, who are now based in Colorado, should remain in New Jersey federal court. Van Dyke v. Schultz, 14-cv-3296. In New Jersey in 2008, plaintiff Jason Van Dyke joined the band 6 Cheek, which became The Lumineers the following year, but he says he was eventually left behind after the other members moved to Colorado. Van Dyke's suit asks for a declaration that he is a co-owner of several of the band's songs and for enforcement of what he says are his partnership rights. Original members Wesley Schultz and Jeremy Fraites and the band asked the court to grant their motion to move the suit to Colorado, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and because Van Dyke lived in California when he filed his complaint. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi noted: “Indeed, a foreign plaintiff[']s chosen forum is not entitled to significant deference.” But Judge Cecchi added: “However, a foreign plaintiff may bolster the amount of deference given to their chosen forum by making a strong showing of convenience. ' Here, even if deference to Plaintiffs choice is limited, the other factors do not shift the balance toward transfer to Colorado. Defendants' allegation that Colorado is more convenient for all the parties is belied by Plaintiff's evidence that he currently resides in New Jersey. Additionally, the claims arose from the parties' relationship in New Jersey throughout 2008 and 2009. Defendants have not demonstrated, beyond conclusory statements, that witnesses or evidence would be unavailable to this Court.”