Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1114

ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Laurence E. Curran III dated 4/19/2013 re: Counsel for Plaintiffs as well as in the capacity of designated representative of various other Standard Chartered Plaintiffs all of whom are identified on the attached "Appendix A" respectfully request a pre-motion conference regarding the effect of the Florida Supreme Court's recent March 7, 2013 ruling in Tiara Condo. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the letter above submitted to the Court by Standard Chartered Plaintiffs. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/22/2013) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-00118-VM-FM et al.(js)

CURRAN & ASSOCIATES
Attomeys at Law

701 SricJcell Avenue - Suite. 1550

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone [phone]

Telefax 305·728·5288

Laurence E. Curran III

Email lecurran@Jec\ITran.com

, llSDC SI .\iY

April 19,2013

DOCU~JE0fT

By fax tD [phone]
!

Honorable Victor Marrero
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

Re:

Anwar, et al

\l.

.• >­

IELECTRO~fC/\ LtY FILUD
i ')0('

Jr:

Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et aL,

#:

ATE

~lU:.I.)::

09-cv~.118

(VM)(THK)

Various Ca.coes (See Appendix "A")

Dear Judge Marrero:

I write as counsel for numerous Standard Chartered Plaintiffs. as well as in the capacity
of designated representative of various other Standard Chartered Plaintiffs I: aU of whom are
identified on the attached "Appendix A," to respectfully request a preAtnotion conference
regarding the effect of the Florida Supreme Court's recent March 7, 2013 ruling in Tiara Condo.
Ass 'n, Inc. v. Afarsh & AfcLennan Companies. Inc., SClO~1022, 2013 WL 828003 (Fla. 2013), a
copy of which is enclosed~ on negligence claims previously dismissed by this Court. 2
In a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
the Florida Supreme Court in Tiara was presented with another opportunity to address the
application and scope of Florida's eoonomic loss rUle. 3 As this Court previously noted in its

I Por purposes of judicial economy, and because of the common lssues that exist. the affected Plaintiff.~ are
addressing this matter with the Court on a consolidated basis. rather than in separate letters for each Plaintiff.
" Also enclosed is a copy of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' April 16, 2013 Order in Tiara vacating, bas~d
upon the Florida Supreme Court's March 7,20) 3 decisi.on. the trial court'S grant of summar)' judgmen.t as to the
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims.
3 "Simply put, thc economic loss rule is a judicially created doctrine that sets fonb the circumstances under which a
tort al::tion is prohibited iftbe only damages suffered ore economic los5c5." Tiara, 2013 WL 828003 llt *2. (citing
lndem.. Ins. e(). ofN. Am. \I. Am. Aviation. Inc.. 891 So.2d 532,536 (Fla.2004»). Tht rule derives fTom early product
liability ca..~es, where plaintiffs asserted the ncw cause of action to recoveT the cost.e, of repair, and consequential
damages for business losses, when a product defect damaged only the product itself. E.g. Seely_v. White Motor Co.,

October 4, 2010 Decision and Order, "the Florida Supreme Court's own 'pronouncements on the
mle have not always been clear. '" Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 745 F. Supp. 2d 360, 374
on reconsideration. 745 F. Supp. 2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) and on reconsideraTion, 745 F. Supp.
2d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (quoting Moransais v. Heathman, 744 So.2d 980 (Fla. I 999)). In
determining the question as to whether the economic loss rule barred an insured's suit against an
insurance broker where the paTties were in contractual privity with one another and the damages
sought were solely for economic losses, the Court receded from its prior decisions and ruled that
the economi.c lmis J"Ule is solely limited to products JiabHity ca.<;es. Tiara, 2013 WL 828003 at .1.
As stated in its ruling, the Florida Supreme Court had '"been concerned with what it perceived as
an over-expansion of the economic loss mle.,,4 ld at 7. The Tiara Court concluded that:
Having reviewed the origin and original purpose of the economic loss rule, and
what has been described as the unprincipled extension of the rule, we now take
this .final step and hold that the economic loss rule applies only in the. products
liability context. We thus recede from our prior rulings to the extent that they have
applied the economic loss rule to cases other than products liability.
!d. (emphasis added).
As a result of the Florida Supreme Cotut's ruling in Tiara. the Plaintiffs identified on
Appendix A move for reconsideration of the Court's prior dismissal of their negligence claims
based upon the economic loss rule. s Specifically, the decision in Tiara explicitly overrules the
Florida Supreme Court's prior rulings to the extent that they have applied the economic loss rule
to cases other than products liability.6 Many of these very rulil1gs were relied on by this Court in
its reasoning when dismissing Plaintiffs' negligence claims~ including Moransais and [ndem. 1,1s.
Co. of N. Am. v. Am. Aviation. lnc.. 891 So. 2d 532, 534 (Fla. 2004). Additionally, the request

63 Cal. 2d 9 (Cal. 1965) (Traynor. J.). Afttr 20 years or misapplication to well-established Florida tort claims in
which the 0111y damages could be "economic losses," the Tial'a decision. Jimits the ruJe to it.~ original purpose.
4 Indeed, one of the very concerns the Florida. Supreme Court ha.d was that. in its owo. detenninedness to return the
economic loss role to i.ts intended purpose, it left a number of exceptions to Ihe rulc. !d at *7. In the Tiara's Court's
own words, "[w]e simply did not go far ~nough:' !ff. One such t!xctption was the Court'S decision in MOfafl.Sais ...
Heathman, 744 So. 2d 973, 983 (Fla. t999) ("While provisions of a contract may impact a legal dispute, including
an action for professional servicc:!, the mcf'¢ existence of such a contract shou Id not serve per se to bar an action for
prof£"ssional malpractice."). Moransais has special bearing here as this Cou.rt refused to extend the "profe~sional
services" exception to claims brought by Plaintiffs Almiro11 and Carrillo [D.E. 744]. In light of the Florida Supreme
Court's ruling in Tiara, the question is no longer whether one of the above described exceptions applied, but
whether the Plaintiffs' negligence claims were brought under a products liability context. As the answer is in the
negative, the economic loss rule cannot be applied.
S Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the fQllowing orders: 9/12/12 Decision and Order (Doc 937): Stipulation and
Order Dismissing Claims in Specified Standard Chartered Cases, dated September 4,20 l2 (Doc 936), November 12,
20 J I Dccision and Order.
~ Importantly, the Tiara decision does not limit iu holding [0 fu(ure cases. See 8rackenridge: 'V Arncte/c, Inc.. 5 J 7 So.
2d 667, 668-69 (Fla. 1987) ("it i~ a general rule that a decision of a CQurt of last resort which overrules a prior
decision ill retrospective as well as prospective in its operation unless declared by the opinion to have prospective
effect only.").

2

meets squarely with the Court's standard for reconsideration, namely, an intervening change in
controlling law. 7

Moreover, as the Court is aware, the Standard Chartered Defendants have been the
economic 105s rules' greatest champion. The Standard Chartered Defendants have a.rgued from
their very first motion to dismiss filed in these actions that the economic loss rule barred
Plaintiffs' tort claims. Indeed, as a result of the Court's November 2, 2011 Decision and Order,
where in the Court dismissed Almiron and Cardlln '.~ negligence claims because they were
precluded by the now declawed economic loss rule, the Bank haS"used that decision as a sword to
force Plaintiffs to drop their negligence claims. As a result, many of negligence claims were
voluntary dismissed for purposes of judicial efficiency, includi.ng negligence claims originally
brought by various Standard Chartered Plaintiffs.

The attached Appendix details which

negligence claims were specifically dismissed by Court Order, and which were voluntarily
dismissed based upon then-existing Court Orders.
Accordingly, the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs respectfully request a pre-conference
motion to discuss this reconsideration request and to discuss their request for leave to replead
Plaintiffs' dismissed negligence claims.

~d_'_.____~_
Laurence E. Curran III

The

~Ierk. ofC-ourt is directed to enter into the public record

of thl~ actIon the lette~?~bmittC?47.t~ by

SU.,;,..Ar-/ C~/ ff~tp.

SO ORDERED.

.

~

'f-~-:T;L 3 ~~-~RERO_~
1 "The m~ior grounds justifying reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of
new evidence, or the nced to correct a clear error or prevent manifest inju.~ticc:" Virgin At!. A.i"way.~. Ltd. v. Nofl
Mediatiol1 Rd.• 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting 18 C. Wrig.ht, et al., FerieraIP"actice & Procedure. §
4478 at 790).

3

Appendix A

Curran & Associatcs - Cases covered by Stipulation and Order of September 4,

2012 (Doc 936).
(1)

Triple R Holdings Ltd.. et oZ. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Ltd., et al., No. ll-cv-897;

(2)

New Horizon Development Inc .. et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank
International (Americas) Ltd., er 01., No. l1-cv-898;

(3)

Sal car Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Bank lnten1ational (Americas) Lfd..
af., No. ll-cv·S99;

(4)

Reinaldo Ruiz v. Standa1'd Chartered Bank h1.ternational (A.mericas) Ltd,
et ai, No. ll-cv-900;

(5)

Iston Holdings Ltd., et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Ltd., et aL No. l1-cv-901;

(6)

el

Ramiro Rendiles v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas)

Ltd, et aJ., No. ll-cv-902;
(7)

Alberto Perez v. Standard Chartered Bank InternaTional (Americas) Ltd..
et af..

No. ll-cv-903;

(8)

Auburn Overseas Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(A.mericas) Ltd., et 01., No. ll-cv-904;

(9)

Infer/and Investments Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Ltd. et 01.• No. l1-cv-90S;

(10)

Velvor S.A., et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas)

Ltd. et al., No. 11·cv-906;
(1 1)

5C Investments Ltd. v. Standard Chartered Baf'lk Internarional (Americaj)
Ltd. et ai., No. ll-cv-907;

(2) Jorge Asensio v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd..
el af., No. II-cv-908;
(13) Bahia Del Rio. S.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas)
Limited. et al., No, 11-cv-5716;
(14) Archangel Resources Limited. et al. v. Standard Chartered International

(Ame7'ica.'f) Limited. et al.• No. l1-cv-5717;
(15)

Blount International v. Standard Chartered international (Americas)
Limited. et af., No. ll-cv~5719;
1

(16) Esther Diaz de Camara v. Standard Chartered International (Americas)

Limired. el al., No. l1-cv-5720;

(17) John Paul Dougherty v. Standard Chartered International (Americas)

Limited, et at., No. ll-cv -5721;

(18) Jose de Passos Vieira Lima v. Standard Chartered International

(Americas) Limited. el aI., No. J l-cv-5722;

(19) Lucrecia Echeverri de Mota v. Standard ChQrtered internQtional
(Americas) Limited, e1 01., ~o. ll-cv-5723;
(20)

Eugene Thomas Dougherty Novella v. Standard Chartered Inremalional
(Americas) Limited, et al" No. l1-cv-5724;

(21)

Richman Company Ltd. v. Standard Chartered International (Americas)
Limited. et al., No. ll-cv-5725~

(22) .Juan Carlas Sabillon v. StQn.dQrd Chartered International (Americas)
Limited. ef al., No. 11-cv-5726;
(23) San Bias 8.A .. et aJ. v. Standord Chartered Inrernational (Americas) LJd.~
No. II-cv-5727;
(24)

Smerant Co'p. v. Standard Chartered International (Americas) Limited ef
al., No. 11-cv-5728;

(25) Manu.el Mantecon v. Slandard Chartered Bank International (Americas)
Limited, et of., No. l1-cv-5729;
(26) Pharmafoods intemalianal C. V:. el al. v. Standard Chartered Bank

Internarional (Americas) Limited. et al., No. l1-cv-5729;

(27) Tierra C. v., et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank internation.al (Americas)
Limited, et aI., No. l1-cv-5 731;
(28) Jose Mizrahi v. Standard Chartered Bank Il1ternational (Americas)
Limited. et af.: No. 11-cv-6788;
(29)

Quiroz Stone v. Standard Chanered Bank Tnternational (Americas)
Limited et al., No. ll-cv-7651;

(30) Nautical Village, Inc. v. Slandord Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Limited, No. ll-cv-7652:
(31)

Positano Investment Lrd. v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Ltd., et aI., No. 11-cv·8371;

2

(32) Maplehurst Holdings Ltd., v. Standard Chartered Bank International

(Americas) Limited. e1 al.~ No. J l-cv-8372;

(33) Sand Over.';eas Limitedv. Standard Chartered Bank Inrernational
(Americas) limited, et 01., No. 12-cv-148;

(34) Rebac Enlerprises Ltd v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Limited, et al.. No. 12-cv-03969: and
(35) Brea International. Ltd., v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Limited, et al., No. 12-cv·3970;

Curran & Associates - Cases Pending a Negotiated Stipulation affected by the
Florida ELR and Court's prior Orders and Decisions
(1)

Emilio Diaz v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd,
No. 12-cv-9146;

(2)

Bernardo J. Rosel1rai v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(.4.merica.'i) Ltd, No. 12-cv-942I ;

(3)

Lyac Venture Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas)
Ltd., No. 12-cv-9422;

(4)

Sara Boltvinikde Uziel v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Ltd, No. 12-cv-9423;

(5)

TRE-C. S.A. v. Standard Charfered Bank International (Americas) Ltd,
No. 12-cv-9425;

(6)

Skyt.!orth Products Ltd v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Ltd. No. 12-cv-9427;

Marko & Magolnick - Negligence Claims Dismissed Pursuant to September 12,
2012 Decision and Order (Doc 937):
(1 )

Baymalllnvestmenfs Ltd v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Limited - No. ll-cv-7649

(2)

Blockbend Ltd. 1'. Standard Charlered Bank blternational (Americas)
Limited- No. 11-cv-7650

(3)

Eduardo Child Escobar. et al. . v. Standard Chartered Bank International
(Americas) Limited - No. 11-cv-23120

(4)

East/ork Assets Ltd. v. Srandard Chartered Bank InrernaTional
(Americas) Limit~d - No. ll-cv-7653

3

(5)

Gerico InvestmenTS Inc., el al. v. Standard Chartered Bank
International (Am.ericas) Limited - No. 11-cv-909

(6)

Mailand ltrvestments Inc.

\.l.

Standard Chartered Bank International

(Americas) Limited - No. ll-cv-S732
Katz Barron - Negligence Claim Dismissed Pursuant to September 12, 2012 Decision
and Order (Doc 937:
(1)

Barbachano Herrero v. Standard Chartered Bank Int'l (Americas) Lrd., et
01., No. 11 Civ. 3553

Jones & Adams - Negligence Claims Dismissed Pursuant to November 12,2011
Decision and Order:
(1)

Carlos Carrillo v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas)
Limited. et. al., No 10-cv-20762

(2)

Ricardo Almiron 11. Standard Chartered Bank International (Am.ericas)
Limited, et~ al.~ Case No.1 0-20763

4