1 

16-1376-cv 

Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC 

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 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 26th day of April, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, 

GUIDO CALABRESI, 

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 

Circuit Judges. 

 

HANNA BOUVENG, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 16-1376-cv 

v. 

 

NYG CAPITAL LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS NEW YORK 

GLOBAL GROUP, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS FNL

MEDIA LLC, BENJAMIN WEY, FNL MEDIA LLC 

Defendants-Appellants.

 

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: PERRY FALLICK (Benedict P. Morelli on the 

brief), Morelli Law Firm, New York, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS: GLENN COLTON, Dentons US LLP, New 

York, NY.

Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

New York (Paul G. Gardephe, Judge). 
2 

UPON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

Defendants-appellants NYG Capital LLC, Benjamin Wey, FNL Media LLC (collectively, 

“Defendants”) appeal the May 10, 2016 amended judgment of the district court, denying their 

motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial as to liability and granting in part their 

motion for remittitur as to damage awards.1

 On appeal, they argue that we should vacate the district 

court’s judgment and order a new trial on defamation, or alternatively remit the damages awarded to 

a level more consistent with First Amendment and Due Process requirements, in addition to 

granting relief on a number of additional alleged errors. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. 

We need not reach the merits of this appeal because the amended judgment is not final. The 

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim remains pending before the district court. Under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 54(b), when any claim for relief is pending before the district court, a judgment is 

not deemed final unless, with due consideration for the “historic federal policy against piecemeal 

appeals,” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (internal quotation marks 

omitted), the district court certifies the amended judgment as final, accompanied by an explanation 

of why there is “no just reason for delay” of appellate review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); see also HBE 

Leasing Corp. v. Frank, 48 F.3d 623, 632 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that order that did not resolve all the 

claims in the action was interlocutory and was not appealable because there was no Rule 54(b) 

certification). Here, appropriate certification has neither been sought nor issued. Accordingly, we 

lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

 FOR THE COURT: 

 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 

 1 Plaintiff-appellee Hanna Bouveng brought an action alleging claims of: (1) quid pro quo sexual 

harassment under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and New York City Human Rights 

Law (“NYCHRL”); (2) retaliation under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL; (3) defamation; and (4) assault and 

battery. After a ten-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on all claims except the assault 

and battery claims. The jury awarded over $18 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the Plaintiff. 

The Defendants moved for remittitur concerning the damages award, and the district court granted it in part. 

On April 11, 2016, Bouveng accepted the remittitur and an amended judgment totaling approximately $5.7 

million in damages was entered on May 10, 2016.