Pacific Life Insurance Company et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon
| Pacific Life Insurance Company and Pacific Life & Annuity Company |
| The Bank of New York Mellon |
| 1:2017cv01388 |
| February 23, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Katherine Polk Failla |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 77 |
| 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
330
ORDER: The Court will be holding oral argument to address questions concerning the parties' briefing of issues remaining following the Court's partial ruling on summary judgment. To aid the Court in advance of argument, by November 27, 20 23, Plaintiffs shall file a completed version of the attached table pursuant to the following instructions:The table lists types of Events Of Default ("EODs") alleged by Plaintiffs. In the second column, Plaintiffs shall indicate by inserti ng "yes" or "no" whether they allege any post-Settlement EODS of that particular type, and, if yes, during what years. "Settlement" refers to the 2011 Countrywide Settlement. In the third column, Plaintiffs shall identif y the source of the servicing standard or other contractual requirement allegedly breached. Relevant potential sources are: (1) Settlement § 5 (Plaintiffs shall identify the relevant sub-section); (2) Settlement § 10(b); (3)Other (which P laintiffs shall identify). In the fourth column, Plaintiffs shall identify the paragraphs from the Beckles expert report that Plaintiffs contend provide proof of the respective EOD under the respective standard. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 11/13/2023) (mml)
|
|
Filing
326
[UN]SEALED OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 292 Report and Recommendations: For the reasons discussed in this Opinion, the Court adopts the majority of the Report's findings and analysis. Specifically, the Co urt: (i) adopts in full its standing analysis; (ii) adopts in full its issue preclusion analysis; (iii) adopts its analysis that the Settlement Date bars many of Plaintiffs' claims, and rejects in part its analysis of the timeliness of specifi c claims; (iv) adopts its tort claims analysis; and (v) adopts those findings to which the parties have not objected. The remainder of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment are denied without prejudice to their renewal before Judge L ehrburger. The parties are hereby ORDERED to submit a joint letter proposing redactions to this Opinion on or before August 11, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to unstay this case and to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 231 and 2 45. The Clerk of Court is further directed to file this Order under seal, viewable only to the parties and the Court. The Court refers this case back to Judge Lehrburger for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 7/14/2023) ***This document was previously filed under seal at Doc. #319, and unsealed without redactions pursuant to the parties' letter at Doc. #325. (tn)
|
|
Filing
294
ORDER: On February 23, 2022, the Court held a telephonic conferenceaddressing the parties' proposed briefing schedule for their objections to Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger's February 22, 2022 Report and Recommendation. The Court adopt s the following briefing schedule: Objections to the Report and Recommendation shall be filed on or before April 6, 2022; Opposition briefs shall be filed on or before May 18, 2022; and Reply briefs shall be filed on or before June 8, 2022. The par ties' objections and opposition briefs shall be no more than 40 pages in length. Their reply briefs shall be no more than 20 pages in length. Additionally, for the reasons stated at the conference, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to STAY this case pending future order of the Court. (Objections to R&R due by 4/6/2022, Responses due by 5/18/2022, Replies due by 6/8/2022.), Case stayed. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/23/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
280
ORDER granting 279 Letter Motion to Seal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 11/16/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
278
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it was not clearlyerroneous for Judge Lehrburger to exclude Lys's testimony. Accordingly,Defendant's Rule 72 objections are OVERRULED and DENIED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/15/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
270
ORDER granting 269 Letter Motion to Seal. Motion granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 10/15/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
258
ORDER granting 257 Letter Motion to Seal. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 8/19/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER: On November 23, 2020, this Court issued an Order resolving certain disputes among the parties regarding Defendant Bank of New York Mellon's withholding of certain documents based on the attorney-client privilege and/or the work produc t doctrine. (Dkt. #207). While the Court largely agreed with Defendant's designations, it permitted Defendant to submit supplemental briefing on certain entries for which it required additional information to make a final privilege determinati on. Having now reviewed Defendant's in camera supplemental submission, the Court accepts Defendant's arguments as to its claim of attorney-client privilege, and will not require Defendant to produce the documents at Tabs 61, 62, and 76 in the binder provided to the Court for the purposes of its review. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/2/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
216
DECISION AND ORDER: MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY: granting in part and denying in part 150 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 152 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 154 Motion in Limine; granti ng in part and denying in part 156 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 158 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 161 Motion in Limine. The parties motions to exclude expert testimony are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the foregoing opinion. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motions at Dkts. 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 161. So Ordered.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/22/2021) (js)
|
|
Filing
215
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: On December 4, 2020, the parties submitted a joint letter setting forth their respective positions regarding summary judgment briefing. After review of the parties' proposals, the following briefing schedule shall apply to the forthcoming summary judgment motions: Defendant shall file its summary judgment motion, with a memorandum of law not to exceed fifty (50) pages, 60 days after the resolution of the parties' pending Daubert motions [ECF Nos. 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, and 161], Plaintiffs shall file a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, with a memorandum of law not to exceed seventy-five (75) pages, 60 days after Defe ndant's summary judgment motion, Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, with a memorandum of law not to exceed fifty (50) pages, 60 da ys after Plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, with a memorandum of law not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, 30 days after Defendant's reply and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/14/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
207
ORDER: The Court upholds the claim of attorney-client privilege as to the entries described above. For those entries as to which the Court rejected the claim of privilege outright, Defendant is directed to produce the documents within 30 days of the date of this Order. For those entries as to which the Court permitted supplemental briefing, Defendant is to submit such briefing within 30 days of this Order. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 11/23/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
200
ORDER granting 180 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file under seal an unredacted copy of Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Jay S. Handlin, and may redact references to that exhibit in their briefing. The sealed copy shall be viewable to the Court and parties only. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/26/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER granting 169 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Plaintiffs may redact portions of Exhibits 7, 11, 14, and 22 to the Declaration of Philip R. Schatz, as well as references to those exhibits in their briefing, and may file under seal unredacted copies of those exhibits. Plaintiffs may also file under seal Exhibits 6 and 8 to the Declaration of Philip R. Schatz. The sealed copies shall be viewable to the Court and parties only. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/19/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
166
ORDER granting 163 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Plaintiffs may redact portions of Exhibits 4 and 7 to the Declaration of Ryan A. Kane, and may file under seal unredacted copies of those exhibits. The sealed copies shall be viewable to the Court and parties only. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 10/5/2020) (rro)
|
|
Filing
149
ORDER granting 148 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application GRANTED. Briefing for any Daubert motions will proceed as follows: Motions and opening papers will be filed on or before October 2, 2020; opposition papers will be filed on or before October 16, 2020; and reply papers will be filed on or before October 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 9/24/2020) (rj)
|
|
Filing
134
PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/8/2020) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
61
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 57 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 53 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by The Bank of New York Mellon. Accordingly, Defendant's argument that the Court misconstrues the prevention doctrine does not present an adequate basis for reconsideration. For these reasons, Defendants motion for reconsideration is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Entry #57. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/17/2018) (js)
|
|
Filing
53
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 28 MOTION to Dismiss filed by The Bank of New York Mellon. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described in the text of this Opinion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Entry 28. The parties are hereby ORDERED to file a Case Management Plan on or before April 30, 2018. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/16/2018) (ama)
|
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.
