Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1132

DECISION AND ORDER: Accordingly, the Court adopts the reasoning set forth in its April 13, 2012 and June 22, 2012 Orders (Dkt. Nos. 853 and 897) and DENIES the Plaintiffs' renewed requests for leave to amend (Dkt. Nos. 1117, 1123 and 1122). (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/2/2013) (js)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------~---------------------X

PASHA S. ANWAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

-againstFAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
DECISION AND ORDER

Defendants.

------------------ X

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

By

letter

Investment

dated

April

22,

( "Headway" )

Corp.

plaintiff

2013,

requested

Headway

pre-motion

a

conference to permit it to renew its request to amend its
complaint.

(Dkt.

No.

Caribetrans,

S.A.,

and Abbot

the

"Maridom

Plaintiffs

1117.)

Plaintiffs"),

Capital,

and

II

collectively,

"Plaintiffs"),

the

letter

dated

April

24,

Teresa

Barbachano

30,

by

separate

letters,

2013,

the

Standard

Chartered

requests to amend their

PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants N. V.

Netherlands")
April

(collectively,

(Dkt. Nos. 1123 and 1122.)

Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs'
complaints.

also

2013.

Ltd.,

with Maridom Plaintiffs and Headway,

joined Headway in this request.
By

Inc.

Joquina

Herrero ("Barbachano,

Maridom

opposed
(Dkt.

the

No.

-1­

request
1125.)

by

letter

Both

the

("PwC
dated

Maridom

Plaintiffs and Headway submitted separate letters replying
(Dkt. Nos. 1129 and 1130.)

to the opposition letters.
The

Court previously denied Plaintiffs'

leave

to

Court

also

Maridom

amend

denied

Plaintiffs

(Dkt. No. 897.)
granted

their

a

(Dkt.

complaints.

the

motions

for

filed

reconsideration

subsequent

Amended Complaint.

request

by

853.)1

The

Headway
of

I,

Barbachano

III,

this

and

the

denial.

for

leave

to

and V of Barbachano' s

(Dkt. No. 995.)

The Plaintiffs now claim that
for leave to amend denied

No.

for

By order dated October 24, 2012, the Court

amend and dismissed Counts

Court

by

requests

their renewed requests

filed more than one year after this

substantially

similar

requests

for

leave

to

amend by Headway and the Maridom Plaintiffs - will cause no
prejudice to the Defendants.
claim that

the

Defendants

Specifically,

will

not

the Plaintiffs

be prejudiced because

"the Standard Chartered Cases are not materially closer to
In these requests, Headway and the Maridom Plaintiffs sought to add
new defendants, claims, and factual allegations to their respective
complaints.
(See Dkt. Nos. 815 and 838.)
Specifically, the Court
denied Headway's request to amend its Complaint by adding: 1) Standard
Chartered International
(USA)
Ltd.
("SCI"),
PwC Netherlands,
and
PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada ("PwC Canada") as defendants; 2) claims
of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Florida's Securities and
Investor Protection Act, Fla. Stat. § 517.301 ("FSIPA"); and 3)
additional factual allegations.
(See Dkt. Nos. 838 and 840.)
The
Court also denied the Maridom Plaintiffs' request to amend their
Amended Complaint by adding: 1) SCI and Standard Chartered Bank ("SCB")
as defendants; 2) claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and a violation of the FSIPA; and 3) additional
factual allegations. (See Dkt. Nos. 815 and 819.)

-2­

trial than they were a year ago" and therefore "the Court's
previously expressed concern about

unfairly

delaying

the

progress of these cases if leave to amend were granted has
not been borne out."
current

status

(Dkt. No.

of

1117.)

the

standard

submi tted

no

Regardless of the

Chartered

Cases,

the

evidence

that

would

not

"significantly delay the resolution of the dispute,

which

Plaintiffs

have

amendment

allowing

credible
juncture

this

at

amounts to prejudice to the defendant."
Greenwich

Ltd.,

283

F.R.D.

193,

Anwar v. Fairfield
(S.D.N.Y.

199

2012).

Unsurprisingly, the passage of an additional year in and of
itself

has

done

nothing

to

alter

the

Court's

prior

conclusion that "there has been undue delay in seeking to
amend the Headway and Maridom Complaints and there has not
been a showing of good cause for that delay."

(Decision

and Order, Apr. 13, 2012, Dkt. No. 853 at 6.).
The Plaintiffs point to no additional facts explicitly
relevant
request.
Chartered

to

their

proposed

Instead,

the

Plaintiffs'

amendments

to

Plaintiffs point

request

to

justify

to

"reconsider

dismissal of their negligence claims .

the

their

Standard

the

Court's

. in light of the

recent Florida Supreme Court decision definitively limiting
[the economic
evidence

of

loss]
lack of

rule to product
prej udice

-3­

to

liability claims"

the

Standard

as

Chartered

(Dkt.

Defendants.
rule

has

No.

absolutely

nothing

proposed amendments.

However,

1117.)
to

Te11ing1y,

much stating that they "do[]

do

the economic loss

with

the

the

Plaintiff's

Plaintiffs

not seek th[e]

admit as

exact relief"

sought by the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs relating to the
economic

loss

rule.

For

these

reasons,

the

Plaintiffs'

attempts to piggy-back their renewed requests for leave to
amend

on

the

Standard

Chartered

Plaintiffs'

request

for

reconsideration is wholly lacking in merit.
Accordingly,
in its April 13,
853

and

897)

the Court adopts the reasoning set forth
2012 and June 22,

and DENIES the

for leave to amend (Dkt. Nos.

2012 Orders

Plaintiffs'

(Dkt.

Nos.

renewed requests

1117, 1123 and 1122).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
2 May 2013

~
VICTOR MARRERO

U.S.D.J.

-4­

..