Amidax Trading Group v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL et al

Filing 61

ORDER: Accordingly, SWIFT'S motion to strike is denied as moot. The time for plaintiff to file a notice of appeal is hereby extended for a period of 14 days after the date this Order is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 7/20/2009) (jpo)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMIDAX TRADING GROUP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- ELECTRONICALLY FILED DATE FILED: 08 Civ. 5689 (PKC) ORDER -------.--------------.--------------...-----------..X 7-do -0 7 S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, S.W.I.F.T. PAN-AMERICAS, INC., S.W.I.F.T., INC., JOHN SNOW, in his personal capacity, STUART LEVEY, in his personal and professional capacities, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, GEORGE W. BUSH, in his personal capacity, BARACK H. OBAMA, in his professional capacity, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, RICHARD CHENEY, in his personal capacity, JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his professional capacity, GEORGE TENET, in his personal capacity, MICHAEL HAYDEN, in his personal capacity, LEON E. PANETTA, in his professional capacity, HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., in his personal capacity, and TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his professional capacity, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------X P. KEVIN CASTEL, District Judge: In a Memorandum and Order dated February 13,2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l), Fed. R. Civ. P., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that plaintiff had failed to establish its standing to bring the action. Amidax Trading Group v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 607 F.Supp.2d 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The Court thereafter denied plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and denied SWIFT'S motion for sanctions. Amidax Tradin~ Grouv v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 08 Civ. 5689(PKC), 2009 WL 1110788 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, On June 22,2009, plaintiff moved, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (Doc. #55.) SWIFT filed a memorandum of law opposing this motion and plaintiff filed a reply memorandum in support of it. On July 16,2009, SWIFT moved to strike plaintiffs reply memorandum. (Doc. #59.) Because plaintiffs motion for an extension of time was filed "no later than 30 days after the time prescribed b y . . . Rule 4(a) [for a timely appeal] expiretd]," and because the Court finds that plaintiff has shown "excusable neglect or good cause," this motion is granted. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) and (ii). In reaching this conclusion, the Court had no need to rely on plaintiffs reply memorandum of law. Accordingly, SWIFT'S motion to strike is denied as moot. The time for plaintiff to file a notice of appeal is hereby extended for a period of 14 days after the date this Order is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). SO ORDERED. P. Ke astel United States District Judge Dated: New York, New York July 20,2009

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.


Why Is My Information Online?