Lebetkin v. Giray

L

20-1374 (L) Lebetkin v. Giray UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of July, two thousand twenty-one. Present: AMALYA L. KEARSE, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. * _____________________________________ STEVEN LEBETKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 20-1374, 20-4229 AYSE GIRAY, AKA SARA BARAN, Defendant-Appellee, JOHN DOE, 1 THROUGH 25, Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: MARANDA E. FRITZ, New York, NY; Stephen R. Field, New York, NY. * Our late colleague Judge Robert A. Katzmann was originally a member of the panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining members of the panel, who are in agreement. See 2d Cir. IOP E(b). For Defendant-Appellee: MICHAEL H. SMITH, Rosenberg Feldman Smith, LLP, Tarrytown, NY. Appeal from a judgments and orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgments and orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Lebetkin appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Ayse Giray on Lebetkin’s claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit recovery. Lebetkin also appeals from several discovery rulings and the award of legal fees to Giray. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. Giray was formerly married to the founder and CEO of the Chobani yogurt company. In 2012, Giray contemplated suing her ex-husband for a share of the company. Giray hired Lebetkin as a litigation consultant pursuant to a consulting agreement that promised Lebetkin 3% of any recovery. At the time, Giray and Lebetkin were also in a romantic relationship. The consulting arrangement was troubled from the start, as Lebetkin immediately clashed with Giray’s lawyers. The Giray-Lebetkin romance likewise soured, and Giray fired Lebetkin seven weeks after signing the consulting agreement. When Giray settled with her ex-husband three years later, she gave Lebetkin nothing. Lebetkin sued, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Giray. The district court also ruled against Lebetkin on several discovery matters. Lebetkin appealed from the entry of summary judgment, resulting in the appeal docketed in No. 20-1374. He separately appealed from the …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments