Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Turner Construction Corp., Eurotech Construction Corp., Donaldson Acoustics Co. Inc., Javier Paulino, Marilyn Francisco, Anthony Guzzone, William Dale Summerville, Lauren Eckart Smith, Michael Campana, Ronald Olson, Fay Devlin, Duane Robert Donaldson, Douglas Donaldson, Defendants-Appellees, Vito Nigro, Does 1-28, Turner Construction Company, Does 1-50, Defendants.
SUMMARY ORDER
Nastasi & Associates, Inc. (“Nastasi”), appeals from a March 11, 2020 judgment of the district court granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and subsequent order denying Nastasi's motion for reconsideration. The district court held that Nastasi lacked Article III standing to pursue its claims because it had assigned its assets, including its legal claims, to the “Franklin D. Nastasi Trust.” We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
In Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., this Court held that “a pre-suit assignment does not extinguish Article III standing,” clarifying that “there is a distinction between having standing to pursue a claim and being a real party in interest with respect to that claim, only the latter of which is implicated by an assignment.” 991 F.3d 370, 380 (2d Cir. 2021). Neither party contests that in consideration of this Court's recent decision, the district court's dismissal, on the basis that Nastasi lacked Article III standing, was in error. As to the district court's alternative holding under Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court's fact-finding as to the “real party in interest” and its determination that Nastasi had a “reasonable time ․ for the real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action” may have been impacted by its determination that the issue was a matter of Article III standing. See Special App. 16–17 n.1 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3)). We therefore remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of this Court's decision in Fund Liquidation Holdings.
* * *
We have considered Nastasi's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.1 Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this order.
FOOTNOTES
1. Appellant's pending motion requesting that this Court take judicial notice of a filing in the related state-court action is denied as moot.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 20-1789
Decided: April 13, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)