Sullivan v. Barclays PLC et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|February 21, 2017
ORDER denying 197 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. Because only FrontPoint Australian and CalSTRS can act as efficient enforcers of the antitrust laws, the Complaint's Sherman Act claims are dismissed as to all other plaintiffs on grounds of antitrust standing. The Complaint plausibly alleges the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy as to Count One only, and Count Two, Count Three and Count Four are therefore dismissed in their entirely. The Complaint fails to state a claim as to Counts Five through Seven except as to defendants UBS and Rabobank. Counts Eight and Nine are dismissed because plaintiffs' RICO claims are based on extraterritorial pr edicate acts. The Complaint plausibly alleges claims of unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to Counts Ten and Eleven. Because plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case of personal jurisdicti on over any Foreign Defendant, the claims against all Foreign Defendants are dismissed. Therefore, all claims are dismissed in this action, except to the extent that Count One, Count Ten and Count Eleven are asserted against the Citi defendants and the J.P. Morgan defendants. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion. (Docket # 197.) (As further set forth in this Order.). (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 2/21/2017) (cf)
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
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?