Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al
| Lisa McCarthy, Mad Travel, Inc., Valarie Jolly, Go Everywhere, Inc., William Rubinsohn and John Nypl |
| Bank of America , N.A., HSBC Finance Corporation, Royal Bank of Scotland, JP Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Bank, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, HSBC Bank (USA), N.A., HSBC North American Holdings Inc., HSBC Holdings p.l.c., Citigroup, Inc., UBS AG, Barclays PLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
| 1:2015cv09300 |
| November 25, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Lorna G. Schofield |
| Antitrust |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1 |
| 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
856
CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 855 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Capital, Inc., Barclays PLC, Citibank, N.A., Citicorp, Citigroup, Inc., HSBC Bank (USA), N.A., HSBC North American Hold ings Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Royal Bank of Scotland, plc, UBS AG against Go Everywhere, Inc., Mad Travel, Inc., John Nypl, John Nypl, et al., Lisa McCarthy, Valarie Jolly, William Rubinsohn. It is hereby ORDERED, A DJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2023, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The request for oral argument is denied as moot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 3/30/2023) (Attachments: # 1 Appeal Package) (km)
|
|
Filing
835
ORDER granting in part and denying in part without prejudice 805 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice. To the extent the redactions -- in the parties memoranda of law, Local Rule 56.1 statements a nd certain exhibits -- are narrowly tailored to protect competitively sensitive information about how Defendant banks set retail prices for foreign currency, Defendants' interest in the confidentiality of that information outweighs the presum ption of public access in this instance. However, the parties have offered no explanation for why they seek to redact information about how the government set the amounts of fines imposed on certain Defendants, nor any justification for filing enti re exhibits under seal that cover topics other than the competitively sensitive information discussed above. By February 10, 2023, each party shall file a renewed letter motion to seal, attaching more lightly-redacted versions of any documents that can be filed in part on the public docket, and specifically explaining why any remaining redactions are narrowly tailored to protect a confidentiality or other interest that outweighs the presumption of public access. In the meantime, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to maintain under seal all documents currently filed under seal. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/31/2023) (mml)
|
|
Filing
821
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by October 5, 2022, Plaintiffs shall re-file public versions of their opposition papers including, where appropriate, effective redactions. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to m odify the viewing privileges of Dkt. Nos. 815, 816, 817, 818, 819 and 820 to provide access to the individuals named in Appendix A to the parties' joint motion to seal, attached to this Order (Dkt. No. 805). (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/4/2022) (mml)
|
|
Filing
803
MEMO ENDORSED ORDER on re: 801 Joint Letter denying as moot 799 Letter Motion for Discovery; granting 802 Letter Motion for Discovery withdrawing request for leave to take deposition of Dr. Strombom. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs' motion to compel a second deposition of Defendants' expert Dr. Strombom is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 799 and 802. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/11/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
792
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by July 25, 2022, Defendants shall file a letter stating whether they still intend to file a motion for summary judgment after Plaintiffs have disclosed any rebuttal expert opinions on July 18, 2022, pursuant to the Order at Dkt. No. 777. If Defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment, Defendants' letter shall propose a briefing schedule that provides approximately one month each for the motion and opposition and two weeks for the reply. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/30/2022) (mml)
|
|
Filing
787
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file the required letter by June 2, 2022. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/1/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
778
ORDER granting 715 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED for substantially the reasons stated in this letter. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to maintain the entries and documents at Dkt. Nos. 718, 720, 723, 725, 726, 727, 733, 735, 738, 740, 743, 748, 751 and 753 under seal with access limited to the individuals listed in Appendix A to this letter and to close the motion at Dkt. No. 715. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/21/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
776
OPINION AND ORDER re: 716 MOTION / Notice of Motion for Class Certification re: 715 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from All Parties dated June 22, 2021. . filed by John Nypl, et al. , 745 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Defendants' Expert Bruce A. Strombom . filed by John Nypl, et al., 731 MOTION to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Carl S. Saba . file d by Bank of America Corporation, Citibank, N.A., Royal Bank of Scotland, plc, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Barclays PLC, UBS AG, Citicorp, HSBC North American Holdings Inc., Bank of America, N.A., HSBC Bank (USA), N.A., Barclays Capital, Inc., Citigroup, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification is DENIED. Defendants' Daubert motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' Daubert motion is DENIED. The request for oral argument is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 716, 731 and 745. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/18/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
775
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the CUCL claim is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no plaintiff in this action has standing to bring such a claim. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' request for Nypl to be dismis sed from the case entirely because he lacks standing is DENIED. Under the one-plaintiff rule, so long as one plaintiff has standing to assert each claim in the case, a court can adjudicate the case without inquiring as to the standing of remain ing plaintiffs. See Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 446 (2009) ("Because the superintendent clearly has standing to challenge the lower courts' decisions, we need not consider whether the Legislators also have standing to do so."); Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 84 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Where, as here, at least one plaintiff has standing, jurisdiction is secure and we can adjudicate the case whether the additional plaintiff has standing or not."). Here, as to the remaining claims, which are brought on behalf of a putative nationwide class, two Plaintiffs, Lisa McCarthy and Valarie Jolly, testified at their depositions that they purchased foreign currency at JPMorgan branches and have met their burden of demonstrating standing for this stage of the litigation. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/19/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
770
ORDER:ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a letter, not to exceed five pages, by November 12, 2021, explaining why the California Unfair Competition Law claim should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file a letter response, not to exceed five pages, by November 19, 2021. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/4/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
709
NOTICE AND ORDER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Matthew A. Peller hereby withdraws as counsel for defendants Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. and shall be removed from the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) notification list in the above-captioned action. (As further set forth in this Order.) Attorney Matthew Alain Peller terminated. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/15/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
696
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by January 11, 2021, the parties shall make a joint proposal on page limits, keeping in mind the Court's prescribed limits for single motions, set forth in Individual Rule III.B.1. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/7/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
695
ORDER: ORDERED that Motion and any related motions for expert testimony shall be briefed, and related expert discovery shall be completed, according to the following schedule: Deposition of Plaintiffs' expert in support of the Motion shall be co mpleted by February 11, 2021. Defendants shall serve but not file any opposition to the Motion, any expert reports in support thereof, and any challenges to Plaintiffs' expert by March 4, 2021. Deposition of Defendants' experts in oppositio n to the Motion shall be completed by March 22, 2021. Plaintiffs shall serve their reply in support of the Motion, any reply expert report, any opposition to any motions to exclude Plaintiffs' expert by Defendants, and any motions to exclude De fendants' experts by April 21, 2021. Defendants shall serve any opposition to any motions to exclude Defendants' experts by Plaintiffs and any reply in support of any motions to exclude Plaintiffs' expert by May 24, 2021. Plaintiffs sh all serve any reply in support of any motions to exclude Defendants' experts by June 21, 2021. The parties shall file all motion papers provided for above and previously served on the opposing party on June 22, 2021. A Fifth Amended Civil Case M anagement Plan and Scheduling Order will issue separately. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall limit any reply to the Motion to responses to any arguments Defendants make in the opposition. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/6/2021) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
685
ORDER denying 684 Letter Motion for Discovery. Plaintiffs' pre-motion letter is construed as a motion to compel and is DENIED. All fact discovery was to be completed by July 20, 2020, (Dkt. No. 548), and the Court only permitted limited fac t discovery after the July 20, 2020, deadline pursuant to the Order at Dkt. No. 645. Pursuant to the Court's November 4, 2020, Order at Dkt. No. 683, fact discovery is now closed and any requests for additional discovery are untimely. Plaintiffs ' request to compel Defendants to produce documents in response to the Court's September 7, 2017, Order at Dkt. No. 216 -- issued more than three years ago and in advance of the deadline for the completion of all fact discovery -- is untimely. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/13/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
666
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, Plaintiffs' request that the Court "review Plaintiffs' early and continued demands for depositions and recognize that the Plaintiffs have not been lax in their attempt to obtain deposition testimon y for at least the last four years, as well as the fact that the Court has only recently permitted Plaintiffs to seek information related to the Defendants' communications with the government," is construed as a motion for reconsidera tion of the Court's ruling during the September 10, 2020, conference, that depositions will not be allowed. It is further ORDERED that, Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED as Plaintiffs have failed to identify any "i ntervening change of controlling law, [] availability of new evidence, or [] need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice, Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikon, Inc., 729 F.3d at 104, that would require to Court to reconsider its r uling. It is further ORDERED that, to the extent that Plaintiffs assertion that, "[a] s specifically enumerated in Plaintiffs' August 21, 2020, letter there were many items that were not provided in [Defendants'] answers," ( Dkt. No. 655 at 3), is a request that the Court compel Plaintiffs to produce documents identified in the August 21, 2020, letter, Plaintiffs' motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal, on ground that Plaintiffs have not complie d with the Court's September 10, 2020, Order (Dkt. No. 645). By October 8, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file any renewed motion to compel (i) specifically identifying each of the documents Plaintiffs identified in the parties' joint lett er filed on August 21, 2020, (Dkt. No. 623), about which the parties have met and conferred but for which the parties have not reached a resolution. It is further ORDERED that, Plaintiffs motion to compel production of the UBS Letters is DENIED o n ground that the UBS Letters "have no information concerning fines or fine calculations relating to FX," "relate[] to LIBOR, not FX," and are accordingly, not relevant to this action. It is further ORDERED that, Defendants shall complete their production of documents, including related privilege logs, by October 22, 2020, and Plaintiffs shall produce their final expert report as further set forth in this order. It is hereby ORDERED that, for substantially the reasons stated in JPMorgan's September 23, 2020, responsive letter (Dkt. No. 658), Plaintiffs request for leave to serve a 30(b)(6) deposition notice is DENIED. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/1/2020) (js)
|
|
Filing
650
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the joint letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix will have access. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/15/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
645
ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that, by September 18, 2020, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss (1) the further production of any previously requested documents or information that either are or reflect communications between Defendants and the United States Department of Justice, related and leading up to the plea agreements referenced in the stipulation the Court approved on March 18, 2018, (Dkt. No. 425), and (2) the timing of Plaintiffs' production of their final expert report in support of class certification. It is further ORDERED that, by September 18, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status letter (i) apprising the Court of the outcome of the parties' discussion, (ii) informing the Court of any remaining disputes and (iii) proposing a deadline for the production of Plaintiffs' final expert report in support of class certification. The parties' proposed deadline for the production of Plaintiffs' final expert report in support of class certifica tion shall be no earlier than thirty (30) days after the completion Defendants' further document production. It is further ORDERED that, to the extent the September 9, 2020, Order requires clarification, Defendants HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. and HSBC USA, N.A. have no obligation to respond to interrogatories on behalf of non-party HSBC Holdings plc. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/10/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
644
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, because Defendants Barclays plc, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG have provided or have agreed to provide Plaintiffs with verified versions of their interrogatory responses, Plain tiffs objection to the subject interrogatory responses of Barclays plc, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG, on the ground that they were not verified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, is overruled as moot. As further set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 09/09/2020) (jcs)
|
|
Filing
637
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the joint letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix will have access. Although "[ t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," this right is not absolute, and courts "must balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyra mid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ([T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court , a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case."). Filing the above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/3/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
632
ORDER granting 629 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file the letter in response to Defendants' August 22, 2020, letter motion (Dkt. Nos. 624, 627, 628), under seal and in redacted form. Pursuant to Individual Rule D.3, Defendants shall file any letter in support of Plaintiffs' motion to file in redacted form by September 2, 2020. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/1/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
622
ORDER granting 621 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The application is untimely but is nevertheless granted. The parties shall file the joint status letter, pursuant to the order at Dkt. No. 574, by August 21, 2020. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/10/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
609
ORDER granting 600 Letter Motion to Seal. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix will have access. Although "[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history," this right is not absolute, and courts "must balance competing considerations against" the presu mption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ("[T]he decision as to access is one best left t o the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case."). Filing the above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/24/2020) (kv)
|
|
Filing
607
ORDER: For the reasons stated at the conference and stated by Defendants' in the joint letter, it is hereby ORDERED that, with respect to Issues No. 1 and 2, the responses of the JPMorgan, HSBC, Barclays, RBS and UBS Defendants are sufficient. The Bank of America and Citibank Defendants are directed to review the available data and file a letter by July 30, 2020, to confirm that no further data is available to be produced regarding the break-down of transactions between transactions co nducted by business end-users and consumer end-users. It is further ORDERED that, with respect to Issue No. 3, Defendants' responses are sufficient because the disputed interrogatory did not seek the daily spot or retail exchange rates used in the requested calculation, but only the calculation itself. It is further ORDERED that, with respect to Issues No. 4 and 5, Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of this Court's prior orders regarding the inclusion of electronic purchas es within the definition of "purchases" alleged in the operative complaint is DENIED for substantially the reasons outlined in Defendants' arguments in the joint letter and for the reasons set forth in this Court's Orders at Dk t. Nos. 319, 349, 447 and 464. For this reason and based on Defendants' representations in the joint letter, with respect to Issue No. 4, Defendants' responses are sufficient. It is further ORDERED that, by July 30, 2020, the parties shall file a joint letter proposing appropriate amendments to the deadlines in Section IV of the Third Amended Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 548). (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/23/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
597
ORDER granting 577 Letter Motion to Seal. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to seal is GRANTED. The unredacted version of the joint letter will remain sealed, and only the parties and individuals identified in the attached appendix will have access. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/20/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
593
ORDER with respect to 577 Letter Motion to Seal. By July 17, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file the "appendix that identifies all parties and attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed documents," pursuant to this Court's Individual Rule I.D.3. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/15/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
576
ORDER granting 575 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. The parties shall file the joint status letter byJuly 10, 2020. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 7/6/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
572
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 549 Letter Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 557 Letter Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 568 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. It is hereby ORDERED that, for the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs letter motions at Dkt. Nos. 549 and 557 are DENIED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to amend the Stipulation, and GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to serve interrogatories on the HSBC Defendants to inq uire into communications between the HSBC Defendants and the Government related to the January 18, 2018, deferred prosecution agreement. Th HSBC Defendants' letter motion at Dkt. No. 557 is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close the motions at Dkt. No. 549, 557 and 568. (As further set forth in this Order.). (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/25/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
547
ORDER: Plaintiffs shall file the letter motion by June 9, 2020. Any response shall be filed by June 16, 2020. (As further set forth in this Order.) ( Motions due by 6/9/2020., Responses due by 6/16/2020) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/4/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
541
ORDER: It is ORDERED that a telephonic conference will be held on June 4, 2020, at 2:00 PM., to address the issues raised in the parties' joint letter at Dkt. No. 540. It is further ORDERED that, by May 29, 2020, the parties shall file a join t letter (1) proposing an appropriate extension to fact discovery; and (2) providing a conference line and, if necessary, an access code for the conference. The parties shall ensure they are all dialed into the conference call by the appointed co nference time. If the parties are not able to arrange a conference call, they shall contact the Courtroom Deputy, Mr. James Street, at 212-805-4553, as soon as possible and no later than May 29, 2020, at noon, to make other arrangements. It is furt her ORDERED that the parties shall attach to the joint letter a list of the parties and their counsel of record who will appear and speak at the conference. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/22/2020) ( Telephone Conference set for 6/4/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Lorna G. Schofield.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
538
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the deposition notices to the Signatory Witnesses are quashed to the extent that they seek information about the facts underlying the Plea Agreements, because the Signatory Witnesses have such information only thro ugh protected attorney-client communications. It is further ORDERED that the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding Defendants' proposed compromise at Dkt. No. 503. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint letter by May 19, 2020, outlining (1) the parties' agreement; and (2) any remaining disputes, with the parties' respective positions and supporting facts and legal authority. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/5/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
527
ORDER: ORDERED that, by May 1, 2020, Defendants Barclays PLC and JPMorgan Chase & Co. shall file supplemental affidavits from Mr. Fitzwater and Mr. Cutler clarifying whether the investigations to which their original affidavits refer were internal investigations conducted by in-house or outside counsel, undertaken to provide legal advice in connection with anticipated or ongoing litigation, or some other type of investigation. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/27/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
514
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, to the extent that the proposed depositions seek to address the topic of the December 11, 2012 deferred prosecution agreement between the United States Department of Justice, HSBC Holdings PLC, and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., the deposition notices are quashed as irrelevant. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek non-public information relating the size of HSBC Holdings PLC, and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., such information may be acquired by interrogatory. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 4/8/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
498
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, to the extent that Plaintiffs' deposition notices and topics extend beyond those agreed to in the Stipulation, they are quashed. This includes the following notices and topics: Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) notice on Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., and non-party Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/24/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
485
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall comply with this Court's Order at Dkt. No. 479 and raise any remaining disputes regarding Plaintiffs' proposed depositions by letter by January 31, 2020. Accordingly, Plaintiff's re quest for a telephonic hearing during the week of January 13, 2020 is DENIED as premature. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall complete fact discovery by June 1, 2020. An Amended Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order will issue se parately. The parties shall brief Plaintiffs' motion for class certification according to the schedule outlined in the Amended Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/13/2020) ( Fact Discovery due by 6/1/2020.)(ks)
|
|
Filing
476
ORDER granting 473 Letter Motion for Discovery. It is ORDERED that, pursuant to the parameters of this letter, the testamentary discovery stay in Case Nos. 13-cv-7789, 15-cv-9300, 17-cv-3139 and 18-cv-10364 is lifted, as to defendants for whom discovery is not stayed in its entirety, for all witnesses but for Frank Cahill, Serge Sarramegna, Jason Katz, Christopher Cummins and Nicholas Williams. The DOJ shall file a status letter on January 10, 2020 and every 45 days thereafter to appris e the Court of the ongoing need for the stay as to these witnesses, if any. The parties in Case No. 15-cv-9300 shall file a joint status letter outlining all discovery that has thus far occurred and discovery that remains to be completed by Decemb er 13, 2019. Amended case management plans will issue separately in Case Nos. 13-cv-7789, 17-cv-3139 and 18-cv-10364. The Clerk is Court is respectfully requested to docket this order in Case Nos. 13-cv-7789, 15-cv-9300, 17-cv-3139 and 18-cv-10364. The Clerk of Court is also requested to close the motion in Case No. 15-cv-9300 at Dkt. No. 473. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 12/4/2019) (ks)
|
|
Filing
447
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is DENIED. Leave to amend is futile where "the claims the plaintiff [seeks] to add would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations." (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 5/20/2019) (cf)
|
|
Filing
300
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 202 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction NOTICE OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS BARCLAYS PLC, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC AND THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, AND UBS AG TO DISMISS THE THIRD A MENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR L filed by UBS AG. As Plaintiffs have not made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over these two holding companies, Plaintiffs' claims against HSBC Holdings plc or RBS Group plc are dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, (i) the motions of BPLC, RBS plc and UBS AG to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are DENIED; and (ii) the motions of HSBC Holdings plc and RBS Group plc to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 202. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/22/2018) (ras)
|
|
Filing
293
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to dismiss the TAC in its entirety is DENIED. Their motion to limit the time period for Plaintiffs claims is GRANTED in part such that claims extending after December 31, 2013, are DISMI SSED. Defendants motion to certify this Order for interlocutory appeal is DENIED. The motion for oral argument is DENIED as moot.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 205 and 236. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 03/12/2018) (jcs)
|
|
Filing
186
OPINION AND ORDER re: 166 MOTION for Leave to File [Proposed] Third Amended Complaint NOTICE. filed by John Nypl, Valarie Jolly, Mad Travel, Inc., William Rubinsohn, Lisa McCarthy, Go Everywhere, Inc.. For the foregoing reas ons, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the PTAC is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall file the PTAC, revised such that the UCL claim is limited to Plaintiff John Nypl and a putative class of California residents, within 7 days. The parties' requests for oral argument are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 166. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 8/3/2017) (kgo)
|
|
Filing
159
OPINION AND ORDER re: 123 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction - NOTICE OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS BARCLAYS PLC, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC AND THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, AND UBS AG TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed by UBS AG, 131 JOINT MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. filed by Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., Citicorp. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss t he Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is GRANTED. Should Plaintiffs choose to attempt to replead, they must file a motion to do so, a supporting memorandum of law and proposed Third Amended Complaint, to gether with a redline showing how it differs from the Second Amended Complaint dismissed here, within 21 days. Defendants Barclays PLC, HSBC Holdings plc, Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc and UBS AG's separate motio n to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 123 and 131. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 3/24/2017) (kgo)
|
|
Filing
104
OPINION AND ORDER re: 97 MOTION to Stay / Notice Of Motion to Stay Case Per In re FX Preliminary Approval Order, Or To Consolidate filed by UBS AG. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a stay is DENIED and the motion to consolidate is GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 97 and consolidate this case for discovery with Case No. 13 Civ. 7789. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 6/8/2016) (mro)
|
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.
