De La Bruere v. Kirby et al
| Massachusetts District Court | |
| Judge: | Angel Kelley |
| Case #: | 1:25-cv-10335 |
| Nature of Suit | 360 Torts - Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Case Filed: | Feb 10, 2025 |
| Last checked: Monday Feb 10, 2025 11:08 AM EST |
|
Defendant
J. Michael Doyle
|
|
|
Defendant
JESSE KIRBY
42 SUNSET ROAD
DUXBURY, MA 02332 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Avivah De La Bruere
|
Represented By
|
| TERMINATED PARTIES | |
|
Defendant
Legal Investigative Consultants, LLC
Terminated: 11/18/2024
|
|
| Docket last updated: 5 hours ago |
| Thursday, February 13, 2025 | ||
| 46 | 46
notice
Notice of Appearance
Thu 02/13 1:40 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Carmen L. Durso on behalf of Avivah De La Bruere (Durso, Carmen) |
|
| Monday, February 10, 2025 | ||
| 45 | 45
4
pgs
order
Order
Mon 02/10 11:23 AM
District Judge Angel Kelley: ORDER entered. Standing Order Regarding Motion Practice. (CEH) |
|
| 44 | 44
notice
Notice to Counsel in Transfer Cases
Mon 02/10 11:08 AM
Notice: Counsel who filed an appearance in this case prior to its transfer must refer to[LINK:Local Rule 83.5.3(h)] Practice by Persons Not Members of the Bar on how to proceed as an attorney in this court. General Information for Attorneys can be found[LINK:here] . (Danieli, Chris) |
|
| 43 | 43
notice
Notice of Case Assignment
Mon 02/10 11:07 AM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Angel Kelley assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson. (Danieli, Chris) |
|
| 42 | 42
transfer
Case Transferred In - District Transfer
Mon 02/10 10:59 AM
Case transferred in from District of Connecticut; Case Number 3:24-cv-01570. |
|
| Wednesday, January 22, 2025 | ||
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Samson, J) | ||
| Tuesday, January 21, 2025 | ||
| ORDER granting Motion to Transfer. Defendants move to transfer this action to the District of Massachusetts. (ECF No. 33.) In considering whether to grant a motion to transfer, courts consider several factors: (1) the location of the events giving rise to the suit; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the convenience of the witnesses; (4) the relative ease of access of proof; (5) the availability of process for unwilling witnesses; (6) plaintiff?s choice of forum; (7) a forum?s familiarity with the governing law; (8) trial efficiency; and (9) the interest of justice. See Broadcast Marketing International, Ltd. v. Prosource Sales & Marketing, Inc. , 345 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1064 (D. Conn. 2004). In the present case, the factors favor transferring the case. First, it is unclear where a significant number of the events giving rise to the suit occurred. Although Plaintiff alleges three specific incidents that occurred in Connecticut, (Am. Compl., ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 13, 16, 19, 22), Plaintiff also alleges that other incidents occurred in New York and ?elsewhere.? ( Id. ¶ 28.) Therefore, it is unclear where the events giving rise to the suit occurred, and this factor weighs only slightly in favor of Plaintiff. As to the second factor, Plaintiff is a citizen of Connecticut and Defendants are both citizens of Massachusetts. ( Id. ¶¶ 1, 2, 3.) Thus, Massachusetts is likely the more convenient forum for the parties. Additionally, Massachusetts is likely a more convenient forum for the witnesses, as the parties indicate that they will be calling witnesses from Connecticut and Maine, rendering Massachusetts a middle ground to which the witnesses may travel. (ECF No. 33, p. 3; ECF No. 35, p. 6.) Concerning the fourth factor, as Plaintiff concedes, this factor weighs in neither party?s favor, as electronic record keeping allows proof to be easily accessed across state lines. (ECF No. 35, p. 6.) The sixth factor, however, clearly favors Plaintiff, as she indicates that she would prefer to litigate this case in Connecticut. (ECF No. 35.) Because it is uncertain where the events giving rise to the claims occurred, it is unclear whether either forum would be more familiar with the governing law. However, as at least three incidents occurred in Connecticut, the seventh factor likely weighs in Plaintiff?s favor. The final two factors, however, strongly favor transferring the case to Massachusetts. Before Plaintiff filed this suit, Defendant Kirby filed a suit against Plaintiff in the District of Massachusetts. The events giving rise to Kirby?s Massachusetts suit are the same as those giving rise to this suit, and Plaintiff filed counterclaims against Defendant that mirror those in the Complaint filed before this Court. Indeed, the District of Massachusetts denied Plaintiff?s motion to transfer that case to Connecticut. It would neither serve the interests of justice nor foster judicial economy to litigate these issues in separate courts. Thus, the scales are tipped in Defendant?s favor. Accordingly, the case is transferred to the District of Massachusetts for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 1/21/2025. (Pastor, G) | ||
| Wednesday, January 15, 2025 | ||
| Set Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/12/2025 (Samson, J) | ||
| Monday, January 13, 2025 | ||
| 41 | 41 ORDER granting34 Motion for More Definite Statement. The defendant Jesse Kirby moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) for a more definite statement of the claims in the plaintiff's complaint. Specifically, the defendant requests the complaint (1) identify what states or countries Mr. Kirby is alleged to have engaged in the conduct in paragraphs 28-29 of the complaint and where "elsewhere" includes; (2) identify what states or countries Mr. Kirby is alleged to have engaged in the conduct in paragraphs 30-32; and (3) identify what state laws Mr. Kirby is alleged to have violated. The plaintiff indicated in her response (Doc. No.40 ) that she does not object to the granting of the defendant's motion and requests 30 days within which to file an amended complaint that provides a more definite statement. Accordingly, the defendant's motion is granted and on or before February 12, 2025 , the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that provides a more definite statement, including by addressing the issues identified in the defendant's motion. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on January 13, 2025. (MacCarthy, C) | |
| 40 | 40
RESPONSE re34 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Avivah De La Bruere. (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| 39 | 39 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for a ruling on34 MOTION for More Definite Statement Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 1/13/2025.(Samson, J) | |
| Tuesday, January 07, 2025 | ||
| 38 | 38 Set Deadlines as to34 MOTION for More Definite Statement . Responses due by 1/10/2025 (Samson, J) | |
| Monday, January 06, 2025 | ||
| 37 | 37 ORDER. On December 13, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement [ECF No. 34]. Plaintiff was to respond to Defendant's Motion by January 3, 2025. Plaintiff has not yet filed a response. The Court sua sponte extends Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement to January 10, 2025 . Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 01/06/2025. (Pastor, G) Modified on 1/7/2025 to correct deadline (Samson, J). | |
| Friday, January 03, 2025 | ||
| 36 | 36
REPLY to Response to33 MOTION to Transfer to Another District - Massachusetts filed by Jesse Kirby. (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| Friday, December 27, 2024 | ||
| 35 | 35
9
pgs
Memorandum in Opposition re33 MOTION to Transfer to Another District - Massachusetts filed by Avivah De La Bruere. (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| Friday, December 13, 2024 | ||
| 34 | 34
MOTION for More Definite Statement by Jesse Kirby.Responses due by 1/3/2025 (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| 33 | 33
MOTION to Transfer to Another District - Massachusetts by Jesse Kirby.(LaLima, Trent)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Memorandum in Support,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit Mass 24cv12015 Transfer Denial Order
|
||
| Monday, November 25, 2024 | ||
| 32 | 32
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *J. Michael Doyle* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Alexander T. Taubes* *470 James Street Suite 007* *New Haven, CT 06513*. (Gaskins, A)
|
|
| Friday, November 22, 2024 | ||
| 31 | 31 SCHEDULING ORDER: Having considered the parties' Rule 26(f) Report and the circumstances of this case, the Court enters the following Scheduling Order. A responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint is due December 14, 2024 . A Motion to Transfer, if any, shall be filed by December 14, 2024. A Response to the Motion to Transfer, if any, shall be filed by December 28, 2024 . A Reply to the Response to the Motion to Transfer, if any, shall be filed by January 4, 2025 . The parties shall confer and submit a new Rule 26(f) report two weeks after the disposition on any transfer motion. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/22/2024.(Pastor, G) | |
| Answer deadline updated for J. Michael Doyle to 12/14/2024; Jesse Kirby to 12/14/2024. (Samson, J) | ||
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to J. Michael Doyle. (Taubes, Alexander) | ||
| Thursday, November 21, 2024 | ||
| 30 | 30
Joint REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| Monday, November 18, 2024 | ||
| 29 | 29
AMENDED COMPLAINT against J. Michael Doyle, Jesse Kirby, filed by Avivah De La Bruere.(Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| 28 | 28 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiffs request to file an Amended Complaint is granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 and 21. Additionally, the Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's response to its previous Order 18, is satisfied of its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/18/2024. (Pastor, G) | |
| Sunday, November 17, 2024 | ||
| 27 | 27
RESPONSE TO 18 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,,,, by Avivah De La Bruere filed by Avivah De La Bruere. (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| 26 | 26
MOTION to Amend/Correct1 Complaint to drop party Legal Investigative Consultants LLC as a defendant under Rule 21 by Avivah De La Bruere.Responses due by 12/8/2024(Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit 1 - Proposed Amended Complaint,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit 2 - Redline
|
||
| Friday, November 15, 2024 | ||
| 25 | 25
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Jesse Kirby waiver sent on 11/15/2024, answer due 1/14/2025 filed by Avivah De La Bruere. (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| Wednesday, November 13, 2024 | ||
| 24 | 24 ORDER finding as moot14 Motion to Seal Case; finding as moot15 Motion to Seal Massachusetts Complaint. In the defendant's motions to seal the case temporarily and to seal the Massachusetts complaint (Doc. Nos.14 ,15 ), the defendant's argument was largely premised on the fact that a similar action between the same parties and involving the same facts was sealed in Massachusetts. However, the plaintiff's22 Notice filed on November 12, 2024 indicated that the related Massachusetts action has been unsealed. Defense counsel confirmed during today's discovery conference that the unsealing of the Massachusetts matter renders these motions to seal moot. Accordingly, the motions to seal the case temporarily and to seal the Massachusetts complaint are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 13, 2024. (MacCarthy, C) | |
| 23 | 23
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert M. Spector: A Discovery Conference was held on 11/13/2024. 4 minutes. (MacCarthy, C)
|
|
| Tuesday, November 12, 2024 | ||
| 22 | 22
NOTICE by Avivah De La Bruere re14 MOTION to Seal Case Temporarily , 21 Calendar Entry,,,,,, Notice Regarding Hearing Via Zoom,,,,, (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| Tuesday, November 05, 2024 | ||
| 21 | 21 NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. A Hearing on the14 Motion to Seal is set for 11/13/2024 at 11:00 AM before Judge Robert M. Spector. NOTICE regarding hearing via Zoom: The Hearing on the14 Motion to Seal scheduled for 11/13/2024 at 11:00 AM will be conducted via Zoom. Call-in and Public Access Number: +1 646 828 7666 Meeting ID: 160 451 8152 Meeting Password: 486513 The Court will distribute the video link to the parties via email. Please note: Members of the public are permitted to join this hearing by audio only using the public access number above. Video participation is permitted by the parties and counsel only. This is in accordance with the remote access policies of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which governs the practices of the federal courts. All persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, screenshots, streaming, and rebroadcasting in any form, of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court. (MacCarthy, C) | |
| Monday, November 04, 2024 | ||
| 20 | 20 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for a ruling on14 MOTION to Seal Case Temporarily Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/4/2024.(Samson, J) | |
| Friday, November 01, 2024 | ||
| 19 | 19
REPLY to Response to14 MOTION to Seal Case Temporarily filed by Jesse Kirby. (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| Monday, October 28, 2024 | ||
| 18 | 18 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 1 Complaint: Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3), the Court must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. "[A] court must satisfy itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction and may at any time in the course of litigation consider whether such jurisdiction exists." Mitskovski v. Buffalo & Fort Erie Pub. Bridge Auth. , 435 F.3d 127, 133 (2d Cir. 2006). If necessary, where jurisdiction is questionable, a court may examine its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte . Joseph v. Leavitt , 465 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 2006). Here, the Complaint does not properly allege this Court's diversity jurisdiction. According to the Complaint, there is diversity jurisdiction because "the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs." (ECF No. 1 para 4.) Plaintiff is alleged to be a citizen of Connecticut, Defendants Doyle and Kirby are alleged to be citizens of Massachusetts, and Defendant Legal Investigative Consultants, LLC is alleged to be based in Massachusetts. ( Id. paras 1, 2, 3.) These allegations do not establish diversity jurisdiction. A limited liability company takes the citizenship of each of its members. See Bayerische Landesbank, N.Y. Branch v. Aladdin Capital Mgmt. LLC , 692 F.3d 42, 49 (2d Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff must "allege the citizenship of each member of every limited liability company that is a party to this lawsuit." Novel Energy Sols., LLC v. Pine Gate Renewables, LLC , No. 23-1191 CV, 2024 WL 1364702, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2024); see also Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC , 822 F.3d 47, 60 (2d Cir. 2016) (finding that alleging an LLC "is a citizen of a different state" is deficient "because it contains no allegation as to the identity or citizenship" of the members). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a letter of no more than three (3) pages by November 18, 2024 showing cause why this Court should retain subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The submission shall include relevant information regarding Legal Investigative Consultants, LLC's citizenship and legal authority. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 10/28/2024.(Dao, J) | |
| Sunday, October 27, 2024 | ||
| 17 | 17
2
pgs
Memorandum in Opposition re15 MOTION to Seal Massachusetts Complaint filed by Avivah De La Bruere. (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| 16 | 16
7
pgs
Memorandum in Opposition re14 MOTION to Seal Case Temporarily filed by Avivah De La Bruere. (Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
| 15 | 15
MOTION to Seal Massachusetts Complaint by Jesse Kirby. (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| 14 | 14
MOTION to Seal Case Temporarily by Jesse Kirby.(LaLima, Trent)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Affidavit
|
||
| Monday, October 21, 2024 | ||
| 13 | 13 ORDER granting12 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Joseph Balliro Jr. Signed by Clerk on 10/21/2024. (Gaskins, A) | |
| Saturday, October 19, 2024 | ||
| 12 | 12
MOTION for Attorney(s) Joseph Balliro Jr. to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $200 PHV fee; receipt number ACTDC-7941293) by Jesse Kirby.(LaLima, Trent)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing
|
||
| Thursday, October 17, 2024 | ||
| Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 11/22/2024 (Samson, J) | ||
| Friday, October 11, 2024 | ||
| 11 | 11 ORDER denying without prejudice 10 Motion to Seal Case. It is by now axiomatic that there is a presumption of public access to judicial documents and records. See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP , 814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2015); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga , 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The moving party seeking to seal bears the burden of showing that higher values outweigh the presumption of public access. See Under Seal v. Under Seal , 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Conclusory assertions are simply not enough to overcome the First Amendment right of access. In Re New York Times Co. , 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987). Otherwise, every articulable privacy concern could and would be advanced in a generalized way to seal civil case dockets. "A possibility of future adverse impact on employment... is not a 'higher value' sufficient to overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents." See Under Seal , 273 F. Supp. 3d at 470 (quoting Lugosch , 435 F.3d at 120). A party's "[g]eneralized concern[s] of adverse publicity" and damage to reputation do not warrant sealing. Bronx Conservatory of Music, Inc. v. Kwoka , No. 21-CV-1732 (AT) (BCM), 2021 WL 2850632, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2021) (alterations in original) (quoting Bernsten v. O'Reilly , 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). Here, Defendant Kirby provides no compelling reason for the Court to seal the entire case. The fact that the Complaint contains allegations that could harm Kirby's reputation and that the Massachusetts court sealed a case involving the parties does not, without more, overcome the presumption of public access. Therefore, Defendant's motion is denied without prejudice to refiling. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 10/11/2024.(Lapsia, T) | |
| Wednesday, October 09, 2024 | ||
| 10 | 10
MOTION to Seal Case by Jesse Kirby.(LaLima, Trent)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Memorandum in Support
|
||
| 9 | 9
Disclosure Statement by Jesse Kirby. (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| 8 | 8
NOTICE of Appearance by Trent A. LaLima on behalf of Jesse Kirby (LaLima, Trent)
|
|
| Thursday, October 03, 2024 | ||
| 7 | 7
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of5 Standing Protective Order,6 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, 2 Notice re: Disclosure Statement,4 Electronic Filing Order,1 Complaint filed by Avivah De La Bruere,3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines
Signed by Clerk on 10/3/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
| Tuesday, October 01, 2024 | ||
| 6 | 6
Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.
(Gaskins, A)
|
|
| 5 | 5
Standing Protective Order
Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 10/1/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
| 4 | 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER
Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 10/1/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
| 3 | 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/30/2024 Discovery due by 4/2/2025 Dispositive Motions due by 5/7/2025
Signed by Clerk on 10/1/2024.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
| 2 | 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 10/1/2024.(Perez, J.) | |
| 1 | 1
16
pgs
COMPLAINT against J. Michael Doyle, Jesse Kirby, Legal Investigative Consultants, LLC ( Filing fee $405 receipt number ACTDC-7922300.), filed by Avivah De La Bruere.(Taubes, Alexander)
|
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit A
|
||
| Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Oliver, T.) | ||