Hong Leong Finance Limited (Singapore) v. Pinnacle Performance Limited et al
| Hong Leong Finance Limited (Singapore) |
| Pinnacle Performance Limited, Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) PTE, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Morgan Stanley Capital Services Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc |
| 1:2012cv06010 |
| August 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Leonard B. Sand |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
70
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) PTE, Pinnacle Performance Limited, Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, Morgan Stanley Capital Services LLC. For the foregoing reasons, Morgan Stanley's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 55 and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/23/2013) (lmb)
|
|
Filing
63
OPINION AND ORDER re: 44 MOTION to Stay Discovery. In this action, Hong Leong Finance Limited (Singapore) (HLF) asserts claims against Morgan Stanley and some of its affiliates (collectively defendants). Defendants have moved for a protective orde r staying discovery pending the resolution of their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, defendants motion for a stay is granted. In balancing the various factors, we have been mindful of the Courts obligation no t to proceed unnecessarily with merits discovery in a case over which the Court may lack subject matter jurisdiction. See generally Filus v. Lot Polish Airlines, 907 F.2d 1328, 1332 (2d Cir. 1990) ([G]enerally a plaintiff may be allowed limited disco very with respect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [it] has shown a reasonable basis for assuming jurisdiction, [it] is not entitled to any other discovery.) (citation omitted). We conclude that discovery should be stayed pending disposition of the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, defendants motion for a stay of discovery (Docket # 44) is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 5/22/2013) (rsh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
