Case Activity (67)

1. Minutes | Filed: July 10, 2026 | Entered: July 10, 2026 Metaxas et al v. Graubard et al

   Contract: Other | New York Eastern

   Show Cause Hearing

   Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peggy Cross-Goldenberg:Show Cause Hearing held on 7/10/2026. Appearances: Lauren Zimmerman and Babak Ghafarzade; appeared on behalf of plaintiffs; Matin Emouna on behalf of defendant Yeschiel Sprei; Mordy Gross appeared on behalf of defendant Jonathan Rubin; Brett Scher and Vincent Miletti appeared on behalf of defendant Frank Seddio; and Zaki Tamir appeared on behalf of third-party subpoena recipient 536 Holdings LLC. Discussion Held. For reasons stated on the record, plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the scheduled show cause hearing. Request GRANTED. The parties are to file a status report no later than 12:00pm on July 16, 2026, updating the Court on the status of this matter. Upon receiving the status report, the Court will determine whether it is necessary to reschedule the show cause hearing. (Time Log #10:22AM-10:36AM.) (JHD)

2. Order | Filed: July 10, 2026 | Entered: July 10, 2026 Metaxas et al v. Graubard et al

   Contract: Other | New York Eastern

   Order on Motion to Take Deposition

   ORDER granting 141 -- The Court grants defendant Rubin's request to take the deposition of Javid Nesaralli and reopens fact discovery for the additional limited purpose of conducting the deposition.

   The Court finds that Mr. Rubin diligently requested the deposition one week following plaintiffs' withdrawal of their deposition notice. Moreover, the Court finds that the scheduling of the deposition beyond the close of fact discovery is necessary due to the current procedural posture of this litigation and Mr. Nesaralli's availability.

   The Court recognizes and shares in plaintiffs' interest in moving this case along. However, defendant Rubin's one-week delay in noticing a deposition following plaintiffs' withdrawal cannot be categorized as an abject failure to timely notice the deposition. Further, plaintiffs' argument that the deposition will cause prejudice because July is already a busy month for this matter falls short. This is not an unanticipated third-party deposition. Plaintiffs, themselves, first noticed the deposition. Finally, the Court notes that there are additional outstanding discovery matters and, in balancing all of the necessary factors, including Rule 1's direction toward a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution and Rule 26's policy in favor of discovery, finds good cause to permit the deposition.

   The July 14, 2026 remote deposition may therefore proceed. If the parties have any subsequent requests regarding outstanding discovery, they may raise them in the previously-ordered July 17, 2026 joint status update. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Peggy Cross-Goldenberg on 7/10/2026. (JST)

3. 65 additional result(s)