Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SONY FINANCIAL SERVICES v. MULTI VIDEO GROUP

United States District Court, S.D. New York


February 8, 2005.

SONY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MULTI VIDEO GROUP, LTD., et al., Defendants. MULTI VIDEO GROUP, LTD., et ano., Plaintiffs, v. SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

In a thorough report and recommendation dated January 18, 2005, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended that the Court grant the motions for summary judgment of Sony Financial Services, LLC, and Sony Electronics, Inc. Multi-Video Group, Ltd. and Rhinoceros Visual Effects & Design, LLC, defendants in 03 Civ. 1730 and plaintiffs in 04 Civ. 1321, and Cool Beans Digital Audio, Inc., an additional defendant in 03 Civ. 1730, object.

The principal objections are that (1) Judge Gorenstein erroneously required defendants in 03 Civ. 1730 to prove an enforceable beta test site agreement ("BTSA") in order to defeat summary judgment, rather than to raise a genuine issue of material fact, and (2) the fact that these defendants acted as a beta test site alone raises a genuine issue of material fact requiring denial of both summary judgment motions. These contentions are without merit. Page 2

  First, Judge Gorenstein did not require proof of an enforceable BTSA. Rather, he concluded that the admissible evidence offered by the Multi-Video parties, even if taken as true and drawing all inferences reasonably drawn from it, "would not permit a reasonable jury to find that there is any enforceable agreement between Multi Video and Sony Electronics other than the SSA [the System Sale Agreement] which relates to the breach alleged in Multi Video's complaint" (R&R at 30) and that there was no "admissible evidence showing that the terms of the Lease do not govern" (id. at 38). The correct standard was applied by the Magistrate Judge and, in any case, by this Court.

  Second, the Multi Video parties argue that the fact that it served by mutual agreement as a beta test site, in and of itself, demonstrates that there is "a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not a sale was ever consummated given the [allegedly] unsuccessful beta test." Obj. 4 (emphasis in original). Indeed, they contend that "Judge Gorenstein failed to properly analyze and readily discounted the evidence submitted by Multi Video" on this point. Id. But a reasonable reading of the report and recommendation demonstrates precisely the contrary.

  The Court has considered all of the objectors' arguments and found them wanting.

  Accordingly, the motion of plaintiff Sony Financial Services, LLC, for summary judgment in 03 Civ. 1730 (#65) is granted, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally, in the sum of $2,936,887.04 together with prejudgment interest at the rate of $724.16 from March 13, 2003 to the date of entry of the judgment. The motion of defendant Sony Electronics Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in 04 Civ. 1321 (#5) is granted on the ground venue is not properly laid in this Court in light of the forum selection clause in the SSA. Multi Video's motions to consolidate (04 Civ. 1321 #14) and to strike defendants' jury demand (03 Civ. 1730 #69) are denied as moot.

  SO ORDERED.

20050208

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.