In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - The Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 7 – In a case against Peter Nygard for rape, sexual assault and sex trafficking, on May 7 there was a pre-motion conference before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Edgardo Ramos. Inner City Press covered it.

   Nygard's lawyer told Judge Ramos that one of the women in the Feb 22 New York Times article "has since been identified publicly, with her consent, as one of the Jane Doe plaintiffs here."  

  Judge Ramos asked, In THIS lawsuit? 

   Nygard's lawyer said, Yes, adding that "Any concerns about revealing this information to us can be handled by a protective order - we'd only give this information to our investigators."    Plaintiffs' lawyer Lisa Haba of Longwood, Florida, said, This is human trafficking litigation. As to the two girls in the NYT article, they are claiming perjury. The third one, the initials are R.R. -- but RR took a polygraph showed by 99% that she did not pay these women.

 The New York Times thrust her into the public eye.   Next Haba cites Doe v Trump, and Doe v Four Brothers Pizza, on why not provide plaintiffs' names at this time, but rather at the time of discovery. She said, "We have a high risk of retaliation in this case... Jane Doe 12 owned a business in the Bahamas, Nygard hired Toby and Bobo to fire bomb her business... In the Bahamas there was a court order for failure to appear. R.R. has been approached in the Bahamas by people who say they are associated with Nygard... There was a murder for hire plot involving Louis Bacon - The Hague had to get involved to order a targeted hit involving Nygard to go forward.    We hope to have more on that.  

   Plaintiffs' lawyer Hab continued, He has declared bankrutpcy for corporate assets. If he gets the names, then declares personal bankruptcy - we've heard he might - it would stay the case and he'd have the names. There's a criminal investigation, a grand jury subpoena...  

 Judge Ramos said, I'm not going to require plaintiffs to turn over the names of the Jane Doe defendants at this time. We may never get to the merits here, for example if I grant their motion to dismiss.

  Nygard's lawyer says 46 of the 46 plaintiffs should be dismissed. He said, He is Canadian. The nerve center of the Nygard entities is in Canada.

  Judge Ramos aske, They say he has a permanent residence in New York.  Nygard's lawyer said, That is wrong. So the focus will have to be on the New York conduct. All they can point to is marketing statements on website about the headquarters being in New York. But that's just marketing statements. The routing of bank transactions, without intent, is irrelevant. This case is inappropriate for class certification - it is fact specific.

   Judge Ramos said, Even if you succeeded in your arguments, then, three plaintiffs would remain?  

  Nygard's lawyer said, Yes, but one of the three is vague..

  THen Plaintiffs' other lawyer jumped in, I just checked Nygard's website, it says the headquarters is in New York. And Nygard invoked SDNY jurisdiction and argued that he and his companies are interlinked, as to reputation; City Press then looked up the case cited: it is Nygard v. Louis Bacon, before Judge Schofield.

  Then plaintiffs' lawyer said, Nygard lives above his store in New York, in violation of zoning, holds "pamper parties. The complaint in Nygard v. Bacon, which at Para 3 says "Nygard Inc since 2005 has carried on business at its world headquarters at 1435 Broadway, NY NY 10018." Apparently Nygard lives upstairs. 

  Judge Ramos said, I'm going to let Nygard file a motion to dismiss - though it is true that your arguments today have gotten into disputes of fact. Let's get some dates Ms. Rivera.     Lawyer said, 30 days is a weekend.     Judge Ramos deadpanned (by phone) that These days one day is the same as the other. So the motion to dismiss is due June 8, opposition July 8, reply July 22. With that, Judge Ramos says, we are adjourned. Be safe. The case is Does No. 1-10 v. Nygard, et al., 20-cv-1288 (Ramos). 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for