Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. et al
| Victor Pirnik |
| Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Sergio Marchionne and Richard K. Palmer |
| 1:2015cv07199 |
| September 11, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 78 |
| 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
409
ORDER DESIGNATING CY PRES RECIPIENT granting 404 Motion re: 404 MOTION FOR AN ORDER DESIGNATING CY PRES RECIPIENT . Upon consideration of Lead Counsel's Motion for an Order Designating Cy Pres Recipient, and exhibits thereto: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT; The remaining $657.53 in the Settlement Fund be allocated to the Investor Protection Trust. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 404. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/28/2023) (ate) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
|
|
Filing
394
ORDER: Pursuant to the Court's October 14, 2021 Order, ECF No. 387, Plaintiff is required to file a letter detailing the status of its settlement distribution efforts every three months until distribution is complete. The most recent letter was due August 1, 2022. To date, Plaintiff has not filed the required letter. As a courtesy, Plaintiff's deadline is hereby EXTENDED, nunc pro tunc, to August 12, 2022. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/5/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
387
ORDER: Plaintiffs shall file a letter updating the Court on the status of distribution efforts by November 1, 2021. Thereafter, Plaintiffs shall file a letter updating the Court on the status of distribution efforts every three months until the distribution is complete. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/14/2021) (ks)
|
|
Filing
380
ORDER. The Court has received the communication attached as Exhibit A from an alleged class member, Ronald Wambach. Lead Counsel shall promptly contact Mr. Wambach and file a letter on the docket addressing the concerns that he raises no later tha n two weeks from the date of this Order. Mr. Wambach is advised that parties may not contact the Court directly. Accordingly, he must either communicate through Lead Counsel (or his own counsel admitted to practice in this Court) or via the Pro Se Intake Unit. In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se (that is, without counsel) are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may still submit documents by regular mail to the Pro Se Office, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, Room 105, New York, New York 10007, or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). In either case, however, there may be significant delays before such filings are received and/or docketed. Lead Counsel shall promptly mail or email a copy of this Order to Mr. Wambach and file proof of such service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/23/21) (yv)
|
|
Filing
379
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT FUNDS granting 372 Motion for Disbursement of Funds. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement Funds is GRANTED. (As further set forth herein.) Six claimants disputed the determinations made by the Claims Administrator and requested judicial review. Those claimants were provided an opportunity to file their objections with the Court by January 6, 2021, but none did so. In any event, the Court agrees with the Claims Administrator's determinations for substantially the reasons stated in Plaintiffs' submissions. See ECF Nos. 373-74, 376-77. Plaintiffs shall file a letter updating the Court on the status of distribution efforts three months from the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 372. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/12/2021) (va)
|
|
Filing
378
ORDER. No later than December 7, 2020, Plaintiffs shall mail copies of (1) their moving papers (i.e. ECF Nos. 372, 373, 374 (minus the attached exhibits)); (2) their letter dated December 2, 2020, ECF No. 376; and (3) this Order to the Disputed C laimants. Plaintiffs shall also attempt to contact the Disputed Claimants by telephone as described in their December 2 letter, see ECF No. 376, at 2. No later than January 6, 2021, the Disputed Claimants shall file any objections to the administrative determinations with the Court. Any such filing must include the docket number for this case and as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/3/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
356
ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE terminating 353 Motion for Settlement; terminating 273 Motion in Limine; terminating 276 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 279 Motion for Summary Judgment; terminating [289 ] Motion in Limine; terminating 292 Motion in Limine; terminating 295 Motion in Limine; terminating 298 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 310 Motion for Sanctions. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in th e Stipulation, and finds that the Parties have shown the Court that it will likely be able to approve the proposed Settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), subject to further co nsideration at the Settlement Fairness Hearing to be conducted as described below. The Court will hold a hearing (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing") on September 5, 2019 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1105, New York, NY 10007. In light of this Order, the parties earlier motions (for summary judgment, for sanctions, and to exclude the t estimony of certain witnesses) are DENIED as moot. The letter motions to file motion papers under seal, which the Court temporarily granted upon the filing of the papers, are GRANTED; the parties need not re-file on the docket any of the sealed or redacted motions papers. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 273, 276, 279, 289, 292, 295, 298, 310, and 353. (As further set forth in this order) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/10/2019) (ne)
|
|
Filing
244
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have the better of the argument. Accordingly, the Government's motion to quash or modify the subpoena to Garris pursuant to Rule 45 is DENIED. Unless t he Court orders otherwise, Plaintiffs shall conduct the deposition of Garris within the next three weeks. All other dates and deadlines in the Pirnik action remain in effect. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this Memorandum Opinion and Order in both 18-CV-3460 and 15-CV-7199. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/24/2018) (ne)
|
|
Filing
240
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 219 MOTION to Quash Supboenas for Documents and Testimony . filed by Gary Koopman, Timothy Kidd, Victor Pirnik. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion to quash is GRANTED in part and DEN IED in part. Specifically, Plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent that Defendants' subpoenas seek testimony or documents from Ms. Stanley, testimony or documents from Mr. Maio pertaining to CWs other than Crabb, and interview notes a nd memoranda from Mr. Maio. By contrast, Plaintiffs' motion is denied to the extent that they seek Mr. Maio's deposition regarding his communications with Crabb and responsive documents other than interviews notes and memoranda. In view o f its limited scope, the deposition of Mr. Maio shall not exceed two hours and shall be conducted within the next three weeks. Plaintiffs shall produce any responsive documents and/or a privilege log at least two days prior to the deposition. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 219. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/2/2018) (ne)
|
|
Filing
223
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' motion to certify their proposed class, as amended by this Court, is GRANTED. So too, Plaintiffs' motion to appoint the named Plaintiffs as class representatives and to appoint Po merantz LLP and the Rosen Law Firm P.A. as class counsel is GRANTED. Further, as noted above, the Court's Order of June 15, 2018 is vacated. Accordingly, Defendants' right to appeal runs from the date of this Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/26/2018) (ama)
|
|
Filing
207
MEORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 203 LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Jeremy A. Lieberman and Laurence M. Rosen dated May 21, 2018 filed by Gary Koopman, Timothy Kidd, Victor Pirnik, 204 LETTER MOTION for Discovery addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. dated May 22, 2018 filed by FCA US LLC, Steve Mazure, Scott Kunselman, Robert E. Lee, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Michael Dahl, Sergio M archionne. In this securities fraud putative class action, familiarity with which is presumed, there are now pending two letter motions raising discovery disputes. (Docket Nos. 203 and 204). Upon review of the parties' letters, the Court concludes that there is no need for a conference; as further set forth herein. That said, Plaintiffs need not disclose the dates of such communications at this time. Plaintiffs contend that Local Rule 33.3(a) "does not permit dis covery into the dates of communications," that disclosure of such information "would reveal the roadmap of Plaintiffs' counsel's methods and strategies in prosecuting this very action after it had begun," and that " [p]roviding this information would also be burdensome." (Docket No. 206, at 1-2). Whatever the merit of those arguments, Defendants fail to explain why the dates of all communications between representatives of Plaintiffs and the CWs are relevant and why disclosure would be proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 203 and 204. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/4/2018) (mro)
|
|
Filing
142
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 131 MOTION to Dismiss the Emissions-Related Claims from the Fourth Amended Complaint filed by FCA US LLC, Steve Mazure, Scott Kunselman, Robert E. Lee, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Michael Da hl, Sergio Marchionne. For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' emissions-related claims is DENIED. By November 27, 2017, the parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint letter, not to exceed five pages, concerning their views on the next steps in this litigation, mindful of both the multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the Northern District of California, see In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel Mktg., Sales Practices and Prods. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 2777, 2017 WL 1282901 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 5, 2017), and the motion for class certification filed by Plaintiffs on March 17, 2017 (Docket No. 85). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 131. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/13/2017) (mro)
|
|
Filing
121
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs emissions-related claims is GRANTED, but Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend those claims; and Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice is DENIED. Within one week of the date of this Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs shall inform the Court whether they intend to amend their emissions-related claims. Plaintiffs will not be given any further opportunity to amend the Complaint to address the issue s raised by the instant motion. If Plaintiffs choose to amend the Complaint, they must do so within two weeks of the date of this Opinion and Order. FCA will have three weeks from the filing of any amended complaint to answer or file a new motion t o dismiss. In the meantime, the stay with respect to Plaintiffs' class certification motion shall remain in effect. If, however, Plaintiffs decline to amend the Complaint again, then FCA's opposition to the class certification motion shall be due within two weeks of Plaintiffs letter regarding amendment. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 91, 100, and 116, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/1/2017) (ap)
|
|
Filing
50
OPINION AND ORDER re: 42 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. filed by Richard K. Palmer, Scott Kunselman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Sergio Marchionne. For the reasons stated above, Defendants motion to dismiss is G RANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Plaintiffs' claims based on Defendants' statements regarding FCA's substantial compliance with applicable regulations survive, but their claims based on Defendants' reserve estim ates and related statements are dismissed. It follows that the claims against Palmer, which concern only the latter, must also be and are dismissed. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs should not be granted leave to file what would amount to their fourth complaint. First, in light of Fait and the legal standards discussed above, any amendment would likely be futile. Second, in granting leave to file the operative complaint, the Court expressly warned Plaintiffs that they would not be given another opportunity to address the problems alleged in Defendants' motion to dismiss (see Docket No. 34), and they give no indication that they possess facts that could cure those problems. See, e.g., Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) (holding that the plaintiff's failure to remedy the complaint's deficiencies identified by an earlier motion to dismiss "is alone sufficient grounds to deny leave to amend"); see als o, e.g., Ruotolo v. City of N.Y., 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming the district court's denial of leave to amend in part because of the previous opportunities that the plaintiff had received to amend the complaint). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 42 and to terminate Defendant Richard Palmer as a party. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/5/2016) (kgo)
|
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.
