Choi et al v. Tower Research Capital LLC et al
| Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hun Jung, Sung-Hee Lee and Kyung-Sub Lee |
| Tower Research Capital LLC and Mark Gorton |
| 1:2014cv09912 |
| December 16, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of U.S. |
| Kimba M. Wood |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 7 U.S.C. ยง 25 Fraud - Commodities Leverage Contracts |
| 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
293
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 264 MOTION to Seal Portions of Plaintiffs' Memorandum and Exhibits in Support of Motion for Class Certification filed by Tower Research Capital LLC, Mark Gorton, 258 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Kyung-Sub Lee, Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hee Lee, Sung-Hun Jung, 277 MOTION to Seal portions of Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum and Exhibit in Support of Motion for Class Certification filed by Tower Research Capital LLC, Mark Gorton, 267 MOTION to Seal Portions of Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Exhibits filed by Tower Research Capital LLC, Mark Gorton. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is DENIED. Plaintiffs' mot ions to appoint class representatives and class counsel are DENIED as moot. The parties' joint request for oral argument also is DENIED as moot. Defendants' motions to seal portions of Plaintiffs' memorandum and exhibits in support of the motion for class certification, of Defendants' memorandum and exhibits in opposition to the motion, and of Plaintiffs' reply memorandum and exhibit in further support of the motion are GRANTED provisionally, except with respect to the p assages that are quoted in this Opinion. The "right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," but courts "must balance competing considerations against" the "presumption of access. " Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The unredacted versions of these submissions will remain sealed for no more than ten weeks-through December 6, 2022-absent further orde r of this Court. By October 25, 2022, Defendants shall file an unredacted copy of the documents to which they seek to make redactions, red-lining each excerpt they contend should be sealed. Immediately after each excerpt, Defendants shall include an annotation stating the reason or reasons that excerpt should be sealed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 258, 264, 267, and 277. By October 25, 2022, the parties must jointly submit a letter proposing the next steps in this litigation. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 9/27/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
283
ORDER: No application have been made to seal any portion of the Court's Memorandum Order of February 18, 2022, the Clerk is directed to unseal the document filed as Docket # 279. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 2/28/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
280
ORDER: The referral to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for reports and recommendations on dispositive motions (ECF No. 89) is withdrawn solely with respect to the motion for class certification at ECF No. 258. The referral of non-disposit ive pretrial motions is also withdrawn with respect to three motions to seal portions of memoranda and exhibits submitted in relation to the motion for class certification, namely the motions at ECF Nos. 264, 267, and 277. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 2/22/2022) (ks)
|
|
Filing
263
ORDER: In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a United States Magistrate Judge is available to rule on dispositive motions in this case. If the parties consent to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on a p articular motion, no objection to the ruling would be permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Instead, the ruling would be treated as any other ruling in the case and would be reviewable to the extent the ruling would have been reviewable had it b een made by a District Judge, including, if applicable, an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. Exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge to make a ruling on a dispositive motion is permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent. To determine whether the parties wish to voluntarily consent to Judge Gorenstein ruling on the motion for class certification (Dkt. No.258), counsel for defendants is directed to send to counsel for plaintiffs on or before October 14, 2021, a copy of th e attached consent form bearing either (1) a signature indicating consent to the Magistrate Judge ruling on the class certification motion, or (2) a notation that the defendants do not consent. On or before October 21, 2021, plaintiffs' counsel is directed to file a letter on ECF either attaching a signed and completed form or stating in the letter that not all parties have consented to the Magistrate Judge ruling on the motion. If any party has not consented, counsel for the plaintiffs s hall not state which of the parties have not consented but shall merely state that there has not been consent by all parties.This Order is not intended to interfere with the parties' right to have a trial and/or any other dispositive proceedings before a United States District Judge. The parties are free to withhold their consent without adverse substantive consequences. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding consent shall not be communicated to any Magistrate Judge or District Judge to whom the case has been assigned. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 10/06/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
256
ORDER:With regard to Docket # 254, the Court will rule on the request made in Docket # 222 indue course. As for a schedule on the motion for class certification, any such motion shall be filed on September 16, 2021. Defendant's opposition sh all be filed by October 29, 2021.Plaintiff's reply shall be filed by November 29, 2021. SO ORDERED, Motions due by 9/16/2021., Responses due by 10/29/2021, Replies due by 11/29/2021. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 8/3/2021) (rj)
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER: In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, a United States Magistrate Judge is available to rule on dispositive motions in this case. If the parties consent to the Magistrate Judge ruling on a particu lar motion, no objection to the ruling would be permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2). Instead, the ruling would be treated as any other ruling in the case and would be reviewable to the extent the ruling would have been reviewable had it been m ade by a District Judge. Exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge to make a ruling on a dispositive motion is permitted only if all parties voluntarily consent. To determine whether the parties wish to voluntarily consent to the Magistrate Jud ge's disposition of the plaintiffs proposed motion for class certification, defense counsel is directed to send to counsel for plaintiff on or before August 2, 2021, a copy of the attached consent form bearing either (1) a signature indicating consent to the Magistrate Judge ruling on the motion or motions identified on the form, or (2) a notation that the defendant does not consent. On or before August 9, 2021, plaintiff's counsel is directed to file a letter either (1) stating that all parties have signed the form and attaching that form or (2) stating that all parties have not consented. If any party has not consented, the letter shall not inform the clerk which of the parties have not consented but shall merely state that th ere has not been consent by all parties. This Order is not intended to interfere with the parties' right to have a trial and/or any other dispositive proceedings before a United States District Judge. The parties are free to withhold their cons ent without adverse substantive consequences. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding consent shall not be communicate to any Magistrate Judge or District Judge to whom the case has been assigned. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 7/19/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
247
CLERK'S RULE 54(b) JUDGMENT re: 246 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Jin-Ho Jung, Kyung-Sub Lee, Myun-Uk Choi, Sung-Hee Lee, Sung-Hun Jung against Tower Research Capital LLC, Mark Gorton. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs' unopposed motion under rule 54(b) is granted, there is no just reason for delay, final judgment is entered as to Plaintiffs' CEA claim. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 05/13/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal) (dt) Modified on 5/13/2020 (dt).
|
|
Filing
246
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs' unopposed motion under Rule 54(b) and respectfully directs the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment as to Plaintiffs' CEA claim. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 5/11/2020) (va) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
234
OPINION AND ORDER re: 155 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative. MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Commodity Exchange Act Claims, filed by Tower Research Capital LLC, Mark Gorton. For t he foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' CEA claims. The Clerk of COurt is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 155. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/30/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER: This communication serves to inform the parties that my husband is an investor in CME Group. I do not find it necessary to recuse myself from this matter for that reason. However, I solicit the parties' views out of an abundance of caution. If any party seeks to have me recuse myself, it shall notify my Chambers of its position in writing by March 19, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/5/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
196
OPINION AND ORDER. Judge Gorenstein's Order of August 28, 2019 preventing Gorton's deposition was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Order is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 11/22/19) (yv)
|
|
Filing
55
OPINION AND ORDER re: 48 MOTION to Dismiss / NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. filed by Tower Research Capital LLC, Mark Gorton. Defendants have again moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complain t. (As further set forth in this Order.) None of the new allegations contained within Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint "nudge[s]" Plaintiffs' claims "across the line" into "plausible territory" as is required under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. This Order resolves Docket Entry 48. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 2/8/2017) (cf)
|
|
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are given thirty days to file an amended complaint, should they choose to do so. This Opinion and Order resolves Docket Entry 18. (As further set forth in this Opinion) (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 2/24/2016) (kl)
|
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.
