1:23-mc-01505
E.D.N.YMar 19, 2025Background
- Tim Leissner pleaded guilty in 2018 to conspiracy charges involving FCPA violations and money laundering; he consented to forfeit $43.7 million and certain Celsius Holdings, Inc. shares.
- Kimora Lee Simmons-Leissner ("Lee") filed a petition under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) claiming ownership of the forfeited Celsius shares, asserting personal and derivative interests through complex transfers involving Nu Horizons LLC and Keyway Pride Limited.
- Russell Simmons ("Simmons") challenged Lee’s claims, leading to the court dismissing Lee’s initial petition but allowing her to amend, which she did.
- Simmons then filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order permitting Lee to file an amended petition, or alternatively sought expedited discovery relating to the relevant share transfers and operating agreements.
- The court’s decision focused on whether Simmons’ motion for reconsideration was moot and whether he identified any controlling law or new evidence that the court overlooked; the court also addressed the request for expedited discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Lee (Plaintiff) Argument | Simmons (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Reconsideration | Motion moot due to amended petition replacing the original | Court retains power to reconsider, especially in face of alleged misrepresentations | Court agreed with Lee—motion moot due to superseding amended petition |
| Controlling Law/Evidence Overlooked | No overlooked controlling law or evidence justifying reconsideration | Court failed to consider merits/futility based on allegedly insufficient/unauthorized transactions | Simmons failed to identify controlling precedent or new evidence; no basis for reconsideration |
| Sufficiency of Lee’s Amended Petition | Allegations plausibly state a bona fide purchase for value and proper ownership transfer | Transaction not at arm’s length, consideration and authority questionable, possible forgery | Amendment not deemed futile at this stage; Lee permitted to proceed |
| Expedited Discovery | Discovery not necessary to resolve standing; request premature and outside proper channels | Good cause for discovery based on allegations of improprieties in transfers and authorization | Court denied request for additional discovery; facts not sufficiently in dispute to justify expedited discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (motion for reconsideration standard—cannot reargue or raise new issues)
- Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 100 F.4th 362 (2d Cir. 2024) (reconsideration requires overlooked controlling decisions or data)
- Shields v. Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124 (2d Cir. 1994) (amended pleading supersedes the original)
- United States v. Daugerdas, 892 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 2018) (permitting amendment to allow third-party forfeiture claimant to plead additional facts)
- DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2007) (no standing for LLC member in forfeiture without direct legal interest)