GFE Global Finance & Engineering Ltd. v. ECI Limited (USA), Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting 48 Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, defendant ECI's motion is granted and its cross-claims against defendants Trilini and Katsnelson are dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by Chief Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold on 2/27/2013. (Keefe, Reed)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------x
GFE GLOBAL FINANCE &
ENGINEERING LTD.,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
12-CV-1801 (JG)

-againstECI LIMITED (USA), INC.,
TRILINI INTERNATIONAL LTD., and
ROMAN KATSNELSON,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------x
Gold, S., United States Magistrate Judge:
Defendant ECI Limited has moved for an amendment of this Court’s previous order to
provide that ECI’s cross-claims against defendants Trilini International, Inc. and Roman
Katsnelson are dismissed without, rather than with, prejudice. Docket Entry 48. Trilini and
Katsnelson have submitted opposition to the motion. Docket Entry 49. For the reasons stated
below, the motion is granted.
While Trilini and Katsnelson’s logic in its memorandum in opposition strikes this Court
as correct, one cannot predict with certainty what plaintiff GFE, perhaps with new counsel,
might do in the future in terms of renewing its case against ECI. Nor can this Court predict how
another court will treat the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims in this forum. Of course, ECI could
only bring a claim of indemnification and contribution against Trilini and Katsnelson based on
the transactions at issue in this case if sued by GFE again based on those same transactions.
Thus, if Trilini and Katsnelson are correct and GFE cannot bring such a suit because of the
preclusive effect of this Court’s previous order, they are in no way prejudiced by a dismissal of

ECI’s cross-claims without prejudice. On the other hand, if GFE persuades another court that,
even after this Court’s dismissal of its claims with prejudice and the denial of its motion to
amend on grounds of futility, a case based on the same facts should go forward, ECI should have
an opportunity to bring its cross-claims against Trilini and Katsnelson. Accordingly, the motion
is granted and ECI’s cross-claims are dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.
/s/______________
STEVEN M. GOLD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 27, 2013

U:\rmk 2011-12\GFE Global v ECI\ECI Mot to Correct Order.docx

2