CBF Industria De Gusa S/A et al v. Amci Holdings,Inc., et al
Plaintiff: CBF Industria De Gusa S/A, DA Terra Siderurgica LTDA, Fergumar-Ferro Gusa Do Maranhao Ltda, Ferguminas Siderurgica Ltda, Gusa Nordeste S/A., Sidepar-Siderurgica Do Para S/A and Siderurgica Uniao S/A.
Defendant: Amci Holdings,Inc., American Metals&Coal International,Inc., K-M Investment Corporation, Prime Carbon GMBH, Primetrade,Inc., Hans Mende and Fritz Kundrun
Case Number: 1:2013cv02581
Filed: April 18, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of U.S.
Presiding Judge: Robert W. Sweet
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 09 U.S.C. ยง 1 U.S. Arbitration Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 551 ORDER: No party sought or was granted leave to file a motion to exclude the testimony of any witness. See Joint Letter of Oct 22, 2021 and Order of October 25, 2021. Plaintiff knew of the pre-motion letter requirement in the Individual Practices at 3 (A)(i) or it would not have submitted a pre-motion letter on the summary judgment motion. Why did plaintiff's counsel remain silent about seeking to exclude a witness? Why did it not comply with the Individual Practices? File a response with in seven days. One of the several purposes of the pre-motion letter required by the undersigned's Individual Practices is to set a schedule and modify page limits when necessary. Plaintiff has unilaterally appropriated to itself 24 pages of addi tional briefing than was authorized by the Court. To mitigate the prejudice to defendants, they may file a responsive brief by February 14 and plaintiffs may reply by March 14, 2022. SO ORDERED., ( Responses due by 2/14/2022, Replies due by 3/14/2022.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 1/12/2022) (ama)
October 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 533 ORDER: The Court waives the pre-motion conference and orders the following schedule: Plaintiff may move for summary judgment on January 10, 2022 and file a brief not to exceed 40 pages. Defendant shall respond to the motion for summary judgment and m ay cross move for summary judgment by February 14, 2022 and file a single brief not to exceed 50 pages. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's cross-motion and may reply on its motion for summary judgment by March 14, 2021 in a single brief not to exceed 40 pages. Defendant may reply on its motion for summary judgment by March 31, 2021 in a brief not to exceed 30 pages. SO ORDERED., ( Cross Motions due by 2/14/2022., Motions due by 1/10/2022., Responses due by 3/14/2022, Replies due by 3/31/2022.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 10/25/2021) (ama)
September 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 530 MEMORANDUM ORDER : For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants' requests for redactions except those at pages 12, 16, 17, 18, 36, 37, 40, 41, and 49, as discussed in this Memorandum Order. By September 15, 2021, defendants are dir ected to submit to the Court, by email, a redacted version of the Opinion and Order consistent with this Memorandum Order. The Court will, in turn, docket that version, and then submit it to Westlaw and Lexis for publication. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 9/10/2021) (ate)
August 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 525 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 447 Motion for Sanctions; denying as moot 473 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference; granting 484 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. For the reasons set forth in an Opinion and Or der to be filed today temporarily under seal, Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part, and sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be imposed on Defendants, consistent w ith the Opinion and Order. In addition, Plaintiffs' letter-motion for leave to file a reply expert report is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at Docket Nos. 447, 473, and 484, and mark Dkt. No. 447 as "granted in part and denied in part," Dkt. No. 473 as "denied as moot," and Dkt. No. 484 as "granted." SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 8/18/2021) (jca)
May 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 517 ORDER denying without prejudice 509 Letter Motion for Discovery. In sum, the facts and circumstances augur in favor of a denial of the request for a Prime Carbon 30(b)(6) witness at this time. After Defendants potentially make additional produc tion and/or provide additional clarifications on the issues, and the deposition of the former Prime Carbon director takes place, the record will be more fully developed. If Plaintiffs still believe that a Prime Carbon 30(b)(6) deposition can thereafter be justified, they may renew their request. The Clerk is respectfully directed to closed Docket No. 509 and mark it as "denied without prejudice." (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 5/19/2021) (rro)
April 30, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 431 ORDER: The Court will hold a conference by telephone on May 7, 2020 at 2:30 p.m. to address Defendants' April 17, 2020 objections to the production of documents requested by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Forensic Protocol Order (Dkt. Nos. 426, 42 9) and Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Dkt. Nos. 428, 430). Counsel should contact chambers using the Courts conference line, (877) 873-8017 (Access Code: 5277586). The Court will arrange for a court reporter to transcribe the conference.(Telephone Conference set for 5/7/2020 at 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 4/30/2020) (js)
April 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 425 OPINION AND ORDER re: 361 MOTION to Dismiss in Part Third Amended Complaint: Defendants' motion is therefore DENIED. (Docket #361.) The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 4/6/2020) (jwh)
March 3, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 418 ORDER: Before the Court are defendants' objections (Dkt. No. 405) under the Forensic Protocol Order (Dkt. No. 379) to the production of certain documents requested by plaintiffs pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Order. Familiarity with the Order as well as the parties' dispute is assumed. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and overrules defendants' objections. While defendants set forth several bases for their objections, they do not contend that the production of the 21 outstanding documents is either burdensome or implicates privilege. On the record presented, the Court finds that production of the limited number of additional documents sought by plaintiffs is justified. Part of their claim is that defen dant Mende dominated the family of companies he owned (along with defendant Kundrun) and plaintiffs want to establish Mende's relationship with those entities and his purported control over them. These documents appear to be relevant to that cla im, and the issue before the Court is simply their discoverability, not their admissibility. Moreover, there is force to plaintiffs' argument that the production of these 21 documents may have some relevance to their ESI investigation. That sai d, and in light of defendants' reply letter (Dkt. No. 412), the Court declines to order defendants to explain why these outstanding documents (as well as the other so-called New Mende emails) were not previously discovered, and what steps they have taken to confirm no new ESI remains to be produced. Defendants are directed to produce the 21 outstanding documents by March 11, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 3/3/2020) (mml)
January 17, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 397 ORDER: The Court held a status conference today to address various discovery issues. As discussed at the conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:1. Plaintiffs' request for cost-shifting is denied without prejudice. 2. Defendants are directe d to produce the remaining OneDrive data to Capsicum by January 24, 2020 (the other recently discovered data sources having been produced). 3. Discovery on the issue of Defendants ESI is extended to March 13, 2020. 4. Plaintiffs are permitted to con duct a three-hour deposition of Ricoh. The deposition is limited in scope to issues that have arisen or new data that has come to light since the previous deposition of Ricoh. The deposition must take place by March 13, 2020. 5. Plaintiffs' re quest for Ricoh to issue a new report is moot, as Plaintiffs withdrew the request. 6. The schedule for Plaintiffs' anticipated spoliation and/or cost-shifting motion is as follows: a. Plaintiffs' motion is due April 24, 2020. Plaintiffs a re directed to provide Defendants with Capsicums expert report, if any, by April 10, 2020. b. Defendants' response is due May 29, 2020. c. Plaintiffs' reply is due June 12, 2020. 7. If the parties wish to hold a discovery conference with th e undersigned the week of February 18, 2020, they are directed to file a letter informing the court by Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. Finally, Plaintiffs are directed to docket their January 10, 2020 letter previously emailed to the Court with redactions, as appropriate, to protect confidential information. SO ORDERED. (Deposition due by 3/13/2020, Discovery due by 3/13/2020, Motions due by 4/24/2020, Responses due by 5/29/2020, Replies due by 6/12/2020, Status Conference set for 2/11/2020 at 05:00 PM before Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 1/17/2020) (jca)
January 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 390 ORDER APPOINTING COMMISSION TO REQUEST DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 17 OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS granting 388 JOINT MOTION Issuance of a Letter of Request for Interna tional Judicial Assistance Pursuant to The Hague Convention and an Order Appointing Commission. You have been duly appointed as commissioners and are hereby authorized, pursuant to Article 17 ofthe Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, to request that voluntarily appear for a deposition in the Cantons of Zurich and/or Zug, Switzerland related to above-captioned matter. (And as further set forth herein.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 1/6/2020) (jca) Transmission to Records Management Clerk for processing.
December 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 380 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 368 Letter Motion for Discovery. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' request for a two-week extension of the fact discovery deadline is granted,on consent. The fact discovery deadline is now February 14, 2020. 2. The Court will separately issue a Forensic Protocol Order, consistent with the procedures discussed at today's conference. 3. On January 17, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., the parties shall appear before the Court for the next sta tus conference in courtroom 21-D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. 4. Any disputes to be addressed by the Court at the next conference should be submitted by letter-motion no later than January 10 at 5:00 p.m. and any responses to the letter-mot ion should be filed by noon on January 14. 5. Alternatively, if the parties do not believe the January conference is necessary, they should file a letter so informing the Court by January 10. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket No. 368 and mark it as granted in part and denied in part, consistent with the Forensic Protocol Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 12/12/2019) (jca)
July 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 295 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court: grants defendants' motions to compel to the extent they seek the production of materials related to SBT's liability and plaintiffs damages from the underlying transactions; denies defendants' motions to compel to the extent they seek the production of plaintiffs' internal communications related to the underlying transactions; denies defendants' motion to compel production related to the Swiss Bankruptcy and t he Swiss Action; grants plaintiffs' motions to the extent they seek to strike defendants' general objections to interrogatories and document requests and directs the U.S. defendants to amend their responses to the discovery requests; gra nts plaintiffs' motion to compel U.S. document production to the extent they seek the bank account records of the U.S. corporate defendants and the personal bank account records of the U.S. individual defendant; grants plaintiffs' motion to compel U.S. document production to the extent they seek records from third parties Loyalhanna (currently limited to the email account of Mike Keenan) and Holsinger, but not from GYF; grants plaintiffs' motions to compel U.S. and European do cument production to the extent they seek transparency of defendants' ESI collection and directs a further response from defendants (as outlined in the Opinion to follow); denies plaintiffs' motion to compel European document production to the extent they seek to preclude defendants from making arguments that the Transfer Agreement was the result of arm's-length negotiations; declares, consistent with the parties' agreement set forth in the letter to the Court dated May 20, 2019 (Dkt. No. 229), that plaintiffs are entitled to the following related to their motions directed at the European defendants: o to strike defendants' general objections to interrogatories and document requests with leave to amend their responses to the discovery requests; o to obtain the European corporate defendants' bank account records and the European individual defendant's personal bank account records; and o to collect documents from the third-party Schweiger Firm, but not from THV; grants plaintiffs motion to compel documents subject to the crime-fraud exception and directs the U.S. defendants to produce the withheld documents; and declares that plaintiffs are entitled to documents from the European defenda nts that have been withheld on privilege grounds because the crime fraud exception applies. This Opinion and Order refers to information that has been redacted in the parties' motion papers and in the accompanying exhibits, and accordingly wi ll be temporarily filed under seal (and provided to the parties in unredacted form by email). The Court directs the parties to advise the Court by email to CottNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov within five business days of the date of this Opinio n and Order with any proposed redactions for the Courts review. The parties should be mindful of the presumption of public access to judicial documents inproposing any redactions. See, e.g., Brown v. Maxwell,__ F.3d __, 2019 WL 2814839, at *3 (2d C ir. July 3, 2019); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court will then determine how this Opinion and Order may be filed on the public docket. Until further order of the Court, the Clerk is respectfully directed to file this Opinion and Order under seal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 7/15/2019) (jca) Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.
June 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 116 OPINION: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 6/15/2018) (tro)
March 16, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 91 OPINION re: 59 MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Fritz Kundrun, K-M Investment Corporation,, Hans Mende, Prime Carbon GMBH,, Primetrade,Inc.,, American Metals&Coal International,Inc.,, Amci Holdings,Inc.,, 50 MOTION to Sta y . filed by CBF Industria De Gusa S/A, Gusa Nordeste S/A., Fergumar-Ferro Gusa Do Maranhao Ltda, DA Terra Siderurgica LTDA, Siderurgica Uniao S/A., Ferguminas Siderurgica Ltda, Sidepar-Siderurgica Do Para S/A. Based on the con clusions set forth above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted. Plaintiffs have leave to renew this case against the non-SBT Defendants following successful confirmation against SBT. It is so ordered. (See Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/12/2015) (ajs) Modified on 3/16/2015 (ajs).
April 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 46 OPINION re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss filed by K-M Investment Corporation, Prime Carbon GMBH, Primetrade,Inc., American Metals&Coal International,Inc., Amci Holdings,Inc.: Based on the conclusions set forth above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted and the Complaint is dismissed. Plaintiffs are granted leave to replead within twenty days. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/9/2014) (tn)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: CBF Industria De Gusa S/A et al v. Amci Holdings,Inc., et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CBF Industria De Gusa S/A
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DA Terra Siderurgica LTDA
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Fergumar-Ferro Gusa Do Maranhao Ltda
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ferguminas Siderurgica Ltda
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gusa Nordeste S/A.
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sidepar-Siderurgica Do Para S/A
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Siderurgica Uniao S/A.
Represented By: David L. Barrack
Represented By: Beret LeAnn Flom
Represented By: James Nespole
Represented By: Jami Elizabeth Mills Vibbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Amci Holdings,Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: American Metals&Coal International,Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: K-M Investment Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Prime Carbon GMBH
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Primetrade,Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Hans Mende
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Fritz Kundrun
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?