DoubleLine Capital LP et al v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd et al
| DoubleLine Capital LP, DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund and DoubleLine Funds Trust |
| Odebrecht Finance, Ltd, Construtora Norberto Odebrecht, S.A. and Odebrecht, S.A. |
| 1:2017cv04576 |
| June 16, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Gregory H. Woods |
| 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
299
ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer regarding next steps in this litigation and file a joint status letter by March 29, 2024. Such letter shall state whether the parties request a referral for settlement discussions or would like to retain a third-party mediator. The letter shall also state whether any party would still like to file a motion for summary judgment in light of Judge Moses' opinion and, if so, on which claim(s) or issue(s) they wish to move. The letter shall propose a briefing schedule for any such motions, as appropriate. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 3/15/2024) (ks)
|
|
Filing
298
OPINION AND ORDER: re: 291 MOTION to Preclude filed by Construtora Norberto Odebrecht, S.A., Odebrecht Engenharia E Construcao S.A., Odebrecht, S.A. For the reasons, set forth above, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have shown that it is more likely than not that Dr. Unni's analysis is reliable at each step. Consequently, defendants' motion to exclude his testimony is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/14/2024) (ama)
|
|
Filing
296
NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT This case has been reassigned to the undersigned. All counsel must familiarize themselves with the Court's Individual Practices, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-dale-e-ho. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the case's reassignment. Additionally, by December 22, 2023, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file on ECF a joint letter, described below, up dating the Court on the status of the case. If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel are not required to submit such letter or to appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is filed on the docket prior to the joint letter submission deadline, using the appropriate ECF Filing Event. See SDNY ECF Rules & Instructions §§ 13.17-13.19, available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. Requests for extensions or adjournment may be made only by letter-motion filed on ECF, and must be received at least two business days before the deadline or scheduled appearance, absent compelling circumstances. The written submission must state (1) the orig inal date(s) set for the appearance or deadline(s) and the new date(s) requested; (2) the reason(s) for the request; (3) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension; (4) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; and (5) whether opposing counsel consents, and, if not, the reasons given by opposing counsel for refusing to consent. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Dale E. Ho on 12/11/2023) (jca)
|
|
Filing
290
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Applying the various reductions discussed above produces the sum of $67,335, as shown in the following chart: and further set forth in this Order. Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants shall pay plaintiffs the sum of $67,335 within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 4/10/2023) (rro)
|
|
Filing
288
ORDER: As discussed at the April 6, 2023 conference, the deadline for Defendants to file their anticipated Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs' damages expert is June 5, 2023. Plaintiffs' opposition is due no later than t hirty days following the date of filing and service of Defendants' motion; Defendants' reply, if any, is due no later than thirty days following the filing and service of Plaintiffs' opposition. The Court will take up any applicatio ns for motions for summary judgment after the resolution of Defendants' Daubert motion. In addition, as the Daubert motion is non-dispositive, the Court will refer it by separate order to the assigned magistrate judge for resolution. See, e.g., Israel v. Springs Indus., Inc., No. 98-cv-5106, 2007 WL 9724896, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2007).( Motions due by 6/5/2023.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/6/2023) (rro)
|
|
Filing
274
ORDER: The renewed motion is DENIED. Ms. Doe has made no showing that would justify her inproceeding as a party in this action, much less as an anonymous party.1 Moreover, to the extent Ms. Doe seeks to use this action as a mechanism for discovering whether any "mini Odebrecht" monies were invested in plaintiff Doubleline Capital, L.P. or its affiliates (collectively Doubleline), she appears to misunderstand the nature of the case. Odebrecht did not invest in Doubleline. Rather, Do ubleline invested in Odebrecht, by purchasing bonds issued by Odebrecht Finance, Ltd. See Third Amended Compl. (Dkt. 61) paragraph 2627. In this action, Doubleline seeks to recover its investment losses on those bonds under the federal securities laws and state law, alleging principally that defendants' financial statements were materially false or misleading. See id. paragraph 1-11, 30242. Nothing in Ms. Doe's renewed motion suggests that she has a cognizable interest in those claims. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 10/24/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
271
ORDER denying without prejudice 269 Motion re: 269 MOTION for permission to file under and as Jane Doe, and then under seal etc.Accordingly, Ms. Doe's motion (Dkt. 269) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.If Ms. Doe seeks to inter vene as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, she must file a motion so stating, which sets out the grounds for intervention and is accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claims or defenses for which intervention is sought.If Ms. Doe seeks to proceed anonymously, she must file a motion setting out the grounds that would justify her in doing so, see Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 190 (2d Cir. 2008).If Ms. Doe seeks to file all or part of her motion to intervene and/or motion to proceed anonymously under seal, she must file (on the public docket) a motion for leave to do so, setting out the grounds that would justify a sealing order, in accordance with Moses. Ind. Prac. § 3 and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onond aga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). Ms. Doe is advised that the staff of the Pro Se Intake Unit (telephone 212-805-0175) may be of assistance to pro se litigants in connection with court procedures, but cannot provide legal advice. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 8/25/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
263
ORDER: On or before August 3, 2022, after meeting and conferring, the parties shall submit (by email) their proposed redactions to the Opinion and Order before it is publicly filed, mindful that such redactions should be minimized, wherever possi ble, in light of the presumption of public access to judicial documents. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47-48 (2d Cir. 2019); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 7/20/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
255
ORDER:The following information was provided to the parties during the June 13, 2022 conference: beginning well before this action was referred to me, my professionally-managed IRA account held shares in a mutual fund known as the DoubleLine Core F ixed Income Fund (DBLFX). That position, which was disclosed annually in my Financial Disclosure Report, varied in size from year to year, and was liquidated earlier this month. I do not believe my investment in DBLFX constituted a financial inter est in any party to this proceeding, nor that it could cause any party to reasonably question my impartiality in this matter, see, e.g., Jud. Conf. of the U.S., Guide to Jud. Policy, Vol. 2B, Advisory Op. No. 106 ("an investment in a fund does not convey an ownership interest in the fund management or investment advisory company"), but nonetheless wished the parties to be aware of these facts. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 6/16/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
253
ORDER: granting in part and denying in part 240 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' letter-motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter-motion at Dkt. No. 240. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 5/31/2022) (ama)
|
|
Filing
251
ORDER terminating 196 Motion to Set Aside 196 MOTION to Set Aside 195 LETTER MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs Rule 72 Objections to Magistrate Judges Opinion and Order Dated September 23, 2021 addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods fr om Karl P. Barth dated October 7, 2021., 190 Memorandu, 197 MOTION to Set Aside 195 LETTER MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs Rule 72 Objections to Magistrate Judges Opinion and Order Dated September 23, 2021 addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Karl P. Barth dated October 7, 2021., 190 Memorandu ; terminating 197 Motion to Set Aside 196 MOTION to Set Aside 195 LETTER MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs Rule 72 Objections to Magistrate Judges Opinion and Order Dat ed September 23, 2021 addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Karl P. Barth dated October 7, 2021., 190 Memorandu, 197 MOTION to Set Aside 195 LETTER MOTION to Seal Plaintiffs Rule 72 Objections to Magistrate Judges Opinion a nd Order Dated September 23, 2021 addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Karl P. Barth dated October 7, 2021., 190 Memorandu.On May 27, 2022, the Court held a conference to discuss Plaintiffs' objections to Magistrate Judge Barbara Mo ses's September 21, 2022 opinion and order resolving Plaintiffs' motion compel. See Dkt. No. 196. For the reasons articulated on the record during that confernece, Plaintiffs' objections are overruled. If the parties' wish to re dact any portion of the transcript of the May 27, 2022 conference, they must file a joint letter no later than June 3, 2022 setting forth the grounds for maintaining those portions of the record under seal. If not letter is received by that date, the transcript in its entirety will be filed on the public docket. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at Dkt. Nos 196 and 197. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/27/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
248
ORDER granting 247 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The settlement conference scheduled for May 16, 2022, is hereby ADJOURNED to June 13, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. SO ORDERED. Settlement Conference set for 6/13/2022 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 5/12/2022) (rro)
|
|
Filing
237
ORDER granting 236 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The settlement conference is hereby ADJOURNED to May 16, 2022, at 2:15 p.m., in Courtroom 20A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. SO ORDERED. Settlement Conference set for 5/16/2022 at 2:15 PM in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/16/2022) (vfr)
|
|
Filing
229
ORDER granting 223 Letter Motion to Seal. Defendants' letter-motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, Dkt. Nos. 225 and 227 shall remain under seal at their current viewing level ("selected parties"). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 223. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/8/21) (yv)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER granting 214 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The settlement conference is hereby ADJOURNED to March 28, 2022, at 2:15 p.m. SO ORDERED. (Settlement Conference set for 3/28/2022 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 11/4/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
203
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record during today's telephonic conference, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs shall file any motion to enforce and/or for sanctions in connection with defendants' failure to comply with or ders directing them to produce documents responsive to RFPs 1, 3, and 4 (Dkt. Nos. 122, 127), no later than November 5,2021. 2. Defendants shall file their papers in opposition no later than November 19, 2021. 3. Plaintiffs shall file their opti onal reply papers no later than November 30, 2021. 4. If the parties wish to modify the briefing schedule, they may do so (within reason) by stipulation. (Motions due by 11/5/2021, Responses due by 11/19/2021, Replies due by 11/30/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 10/13/2021) (ate)
|
|
Filing
194
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated above, defendants' protective order motion as to RFP 5 (Dkt. No.130)is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' letter-motion for an order compelling discovery (Dkt. No. 167) is DENIED as moot, as the relief reque st has already been granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to file this Opinion and Order under seal, at the "selected parties" viewing level, such that only the attorneys appearing for the parties, and court personnel, may view it. By separate order, the Court will give the parties an opportunity to submit proposed redactions before this Opinion and Order is filed in public view. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 9/23/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
191
ORDER REGARDING REDACTION: On or before October 1, 2021, after meeting and conferring, the parties shall submit (by email) their proposed redactions to the Opinion and Order before it is publicly filed, mindful that such redactions should be mini mized, wherever possible, in light of the presumption of public access to judicial documents. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47-48 (2d Cir. 2019); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 9/24/2021) (rro)
|
|
Filing
187
ORDER ADJOURNING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE granting 186 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The Court has received and reviewed the parties' joint letter dated May 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 186), requesting that the settlement conference scheduled for May 18, 2021 be adjourned. That request is GRANTED. The settlement conference currently scheduled for May 18, 2021 is hereby ADJOURNED to November 15, 2021, at 2:15 p.m. (As further set forth in this Order.) The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter-motion at Dkt. No. 186. Settlement Conference set for 11/15/2021 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 5/4/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
182
OPINION AND ORDER: Because the Court imposes Rule 37(e)(1) sanctions but declines to impose an adverse inference instruction pursuant to Rule 37(e)(2), plaintiffs' letter-motion (Dkt. No. 109) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 109. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/30/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER granting 129 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 169 Letter Motion to Seal. For the reasons set forth in those letter-motions, those motions are GRANTED. Accordingly, Dkt. Nos. 132, 135, 140, 142, 144, 148, and 171 shall remain under seal at their current viewing level ("selected parties"). Plaintiffs' unredacted opposition brief (Dkt. No. 160), which discusses the materials summarized above, shall also remain under seal at its current viewing level ("selected parties"). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter-motions at Dkt. Nos. 129 and 169. (As further set forth in this Order.). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 1/26/2021) (cf)
|
|
Filing
175
ORDER: The discovery conference currently scheduled for January 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. is hereby ADJOURNED to January 25, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. At that time, the Court will hear argument on plaintiffs' letter-motion dated January 5, 2021 (Dkt. No. 167) and defendants' motion for a protective order dated November 12, 2021 (Dkt. No. 130). The Court will use its videoconferencing technology (Microsoft Teams), for which instructions will follow in a separate order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 1/12/2021) ( Telephone Conference set for 1/25/2021 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (ks)
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER: granting 173 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application Granted. The settlement conference currently scheduled for January 19, 2021, at 2:15 p.m. is Adjourned to May 18, 2021, at 2:15 p.m. The parties' confidential settlement let ters, as directed in the Court's December 2, 2019 Order Scheduling Settlement Conference (Dkt. No. 94), shall be submitted no later than May 11, 2021. The other provisions in the December 2, 2019 Order and the Court's Order dated September 22, 2020 (Dkt. No. 117) remain in effect. SO ORDERED. Settlement Conference set for 5/18/2021 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 1/11/2021) (ama)
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record during the January 6, 2021 discovery conference, it is hereby ORDERED that:1. Custodians. On the present record, plaintiffs need not add Jeffrey Gundlach or other members of the DoubleLine fixed income all ocation committee as custodians for all purposes.2. Search Terms. Plaintiffs shall add the search terms "Lava Jato" and "Car Wash" to the list of terms they will search across all custodians. On the present record,however, plainti ffs need not add the "Braskem" or "Petrobas" terms.3. The next discovery conference will take place on January 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.,and will address plaintiffs' letter-motion dated January 5, 2021 (Dkt. No. 167). Atthat ti me, the parties are directed to call (888) 557-8511 and enter the access code7746387. Defendants' response to the letter-motion is due January 8, 2021.Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due January 12, 2021. See Moses Ind. Prac. § 2(e)., (Responses due by 1/8/2021, Replies due by 1/12/2021., Telephone Conference set for 1/19/2021 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 1/7/2021) (nb)
|
|
Filing
157
ORDER: The telephonic discovery conference previously scheduled for December 15, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. will instead begin at 2:00 p.m. that same day, December 15, 2020. At that time, the parties shall dial (888) 557-8511 and enter the access code 7746387. ( Telephone Conference set for 12/15/2020 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/9/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
156
STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/8/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
153
ORDER denying 150 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. Plaintiffs' letter-motion is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs' letter in opposition to defendants' December 1 letter-motion shall be filed no later than December 7, 2020 . Defendants' letter in reply, if any, may be filed no later than December 9, 2020. The Court will conduct a telephonic discovery conference on December 15, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. At that time, the parties shall dial (888) 557-8511 and enter the access code 7746387. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter-motion at Dkt. No. 150. (As further set forth in this Order.). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/3/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
145
ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed the parties' proposed stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. Prop. Order (Dkt. No. 128.) The Court declines to mandate, on pain of contempt, that "Discovery Material," even if non-confidential, be used solely "for prosecuting, defending or attempting to settle this action." Prop. Order 1; see Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 192 F. Supp. 3d 400, 406-407 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (directing the parties to modify their protective order "to permit the use of non-confidential discovery materials for purposes other than 'the prosecution or the defense of this Action'"). The parties may re-file a proposed protective order that does not present the issues raised in paragraph 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 11/13/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
127
ORDER denying 125 Letter Motion for Discovery. Defendants' letter-motion is DENIED for substantially the reasons set forth in plaintiffs' October 28 letter. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the letter-motion at Dkt. No. 125. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 10/30/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record during the October 13 conference, it is hereby ORDERED that: No later than November 12, 2020, defendants shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to plaintiffs' Requests for Production (RFP) Nos. 1, 3, and 4,as narrowed by plaintiffs in their September 1, 2020 letter-motion and their correspondence with defendants. Defendants shall file their protective order motion with respect to RFP No. 5 no later than November 12, 2020, sup ported by "information of sufficient particularity and specificity to allow the Court to determine whether the discovery sought is indeed prohibited by foreign law." (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 10/14/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
119
ORDER granting 118 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application GRANTED. The settlement conference currently scheduled for October 1, 2020, at 2:15 p.m. is ADJOURNED to January 19, 2021, at 2:15 p.m. The parties' confidential settlemen t letters, as directed in the Court's December 2, 2019 Order Scheduling Settlement Conference (Dkt. No. 94), shall be submitted no later than January 12, 2021. The other provisions in the December 2, 2019 Order and the Court's Order dated September 22, 2020 (Dkt. No. 117) remain in effect. Telephone Conference set for 1/19/2021 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 9/24/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER terminating 109 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference; granting 114 Letter Motion for Conference: The Court has received and reviewed: (1) plaintiffs' letter-motion dated September 1, 2020 (Dkt. No. 114), seeking an order comp elling document discovery from defendants; (2) defendants' letter in opposition dated September 4, 2020 (Dkt. No. 115); and (3) plaintiffs' reply letter dated September 9, 2020 (Dkt. No. 116). The Court notes that a settlement conference is currently scheduled for Thursday, October 1, 2020, at 2:15 p.m. In light of the ongoing public health emergency, all attendees may participate in the settlement conference telephonically, using the Court's teleconferencing facilities. The parti es are directed to call (888) 557-8511, a few minutes before their scheduled time, and enter (a)the access code 7746387 and (b) the security code that the Court will provide to you, by email, on receipt of all parties' confidential settlement le tters, as further set forth in this order. The other provisions in the Court's Order Scheduling Settlement Conference dated December 2, 2019 remain in effect, including that the parties each must submit confidential settlement letters one week p rior to the conference. (See Dkt. No. 94.) If the settlement conference is unsuccessful, the Court will conduct a telephonic discovery conference on October 13, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., to discuss the issues raised in plaintiffs' September 1 letter- motion. At that time, the parties shall call (888) 557-8511 and enter the access code 7746387. No later than October 11, 2020, the parties shall file a joint letter, updating the Court as to any developments relevant to the disputed discovery issues. (Telephone Conference set for 10/1/2020 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. Telephone Conference set for 10/13/2020 at 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 9/22/2020) (jwh)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER: The oral argument scheduled in this case for June 11, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. will be conducted remotely via Skype for Business. Chambers has emailed the required link to the parties. A publicly accessible audio line is available to nonparties , including members of the public and the press, by dialing (917) 933-2166 and entering the code 866486412. Nonparties must observe the same decorum as would be expected at an in-person sentencing, and must mute their telephone lines throughout the proceeding. (Telephone Conference set for 6/11/2020 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 6/10/2020) (cf)
|
|
Filing
108
ORDER: The President of the United States has declared a national emergency due to the spread of the COVID-19 virus, and the Centers for Disease Control have noted that the best way to prevent illness is to minimize person-to-person contact . In order to protect public health while promoting the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding," Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3) and (b)(4), that all depositions in this action may be taken via telephone, videoconference, or other remote means, and may be recorded by any reliable audio or audiovisual means. This Order does not dispense with the requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (b)(5), including the requirement that, unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the deposition be "conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28," and that the deponent be placed under oath by that officer. For avoi dance of doubt, a deposition will be deemed to have been conducted "before" an officer so long as that officer attends the deposition via the same remote means (e.g., telephone conference call or video conference) used to connect al l other remote participants, and so long as all participants (including the officer) can clearly hear and be heard by all other participants. Nothing in this Order prevents the parties from seeking to further modify the pretrial schedule in t his action in light of the COVID-19 pandemic (or for any other good cause). Prior to seeking such relief, the parties must, as always, meet and confer (via remote means) in a good faith effort to reach agreement on how best to fulfill the goals of Rule 1 while avoiding unnecessary health risks. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 3/17/2020) (mro)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER granting 98 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Third Amended Complaint. APPLICATION GRANTED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 12/17/2019) (jca)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record during the telephonic status conference held on November 21, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Answer to plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is due December 31, 2019. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 11/21/2019) (cf)
|
|
Filing
81
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 75 MOTION to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint: For the reasons articulated above, Defendants's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs state claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against CNO based on CNO's GAAP violations; opinion statements regarding its financial strengths, ability to manage political risk, and reason for CNO's success in Venezuela and competitiveness in Brazil; and disclosures in the 4.375% Notes about CNO's overall main competitive strengths. Plaintiffs also state Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims again OEC under successor liability to the extent that Plaintiffs stated those claims against CNO. Plaintiffs state a Section 20(a) claim against OSA. Plaintiffs' other Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against CNO, OEC, and OSA are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs state a claim for fraud against CNO and OEC. Plaintiffs state a claim for negligent mis representation claim against CNO, OEC, and OSA. Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim against CNO, OEC, and OSA is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Debtor and Creditor Law § 276 claim against CNO, OEC, and OSA is dismissed without preju dice. Plaintiffs are granted leave to replead those claims that have been dismissed without prejudice no later than thirty (30) days following the date of this order. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that leave to amend is "liberally granted"). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 75. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/22/2019) (jwh) Modified on 9/23/2019 (jwh).
|
|
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Construtora Norberto Odebrecht, S.A., Odebrecht Finance, Ltd, Odebrecht Engenharia E Construcao S.A. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismi ss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part: Plaintiffs state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against CNO based on CNO's opinion statements regarding the reasons for its success. Plaintiffs' other Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 cl aims against CNO, OEC, and Odebrecht Finance are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim against OEC is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' fraud claim against CNO, OEC, and Odebrecht Finance is dismissed with out prejudice. Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim against CNO, OEC, and Odebrecht Finance is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' conspiracy claim against CNO, OEC, and Odebrecht Finance is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' DCL § 273 claim against OEC and CNO is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' DCL § 276 claim against OEC is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs state a claim under DCL § 276 against CNO. Plaintiffs ar e granted leave to replead those claims that have been dismissed without prejudice no later than thirty (30) days following the date of this order. See Rutolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that leave to amend is "liberally granted"). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 49. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/8/2018) (anc)
|
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.
