Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1138

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Richard E. Brodsky dated 5/9/2013 re: Counsel writes on behalf of Maridom Limited, Caribetrans, S.A., and Abbot Capital, Inc. This letter is in response to the letter to Your Honor from Bradley Smith, one of Standard Chartered Bank's counsel, which was sent after the telephone conference held yesterday, May 8, 2013. That conference concerned certain Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' request for a conference concerning the effect of the Florida Supreme Court's decision limiting the Florida economic loss doctrine on negligence claims in the Standard Chartered Cases. In Mr. Smith's letter, the Bank asks that the Court reverse itself on a decision the Court announced at the conference: that the Maridom Plaintiffs would be permitted to amend their complaint to add a negligence claim, just like other Standard Chartered Plaintiffs. While this Court did not refer to the proposed negligence claim in its initial decision to deny leave to amend, Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., No. 09-cv-118, 2012 WL 1415621 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2012), it did so in denying the Maridom Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, 283 F.RD. 193. 109 (2012) (holding amendment to add negligence count would be futile "as the Court economic loss rule would bar claims of negligence arising from professional services governed by a contractual relationship."). There is, however, no question that the futility doctrine was not the only reason that Your Honor denied my clients leave in 2012 to add this claim. The question is whether it is logical, fair or otherwise required that, at the same time as other plaintiffs are allowed to add this claim to their lawsuits, the Maridom Plaintiffs should not be allowed to add it to theirs. Fairness and logic dictate that this amendment be permitted. To follow the Defendants' request would unfairly, arbitrarily and unjustifiably elevate form over substance. The Maridom Plaintiffs are constrained by Your Honor's comments at the conference to avoid attempting to bring up any other issue. Instead, they request that Your Honor adhere to the ruling made at the conference related to the Maridom Plaintiffs. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record of this action the letter above submitted to the court by the Maridom Plaintiff. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/10/2013) Modified on 5/10/2013 (js).

From: Richard E. Brodsky

Fax: (8B8) 391-5819

To: Hon. Victor Marrero

Fa,,: +1 (2121805.6382

THE BRODSKY LAW FIRM,
RICHARD

By fax to [phone]

PL

E. BRODSKY,

ATTORNEY AT LAW

U'lISDGSD~~~f

May 9,2013
Honorable Victor Marrero
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.s. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

Re:

Page 2 of 3 519/2013 4:03

'"I DOtUl\li~NT
!\ELECTROI"fC{\LLY FILED'
; i 'JOe #:
-:-.
PATE FILEQ:'

Anwar.. et al. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited.. et ai.,
09-cv-118(l1Af)(~1ll()

Dear Judge Marrero:
I write on behalf of my clients, Maridom Limited, Caribetrans, S.A.,
and Abbot Capital, Inc. (the "Maridom Plaintiffs"), Plaintiffs in one of the
Standard Chartered Cases.
This letter is in response to the letter to Your Honor from Bradley
Smith, one of Standard Chartered Bank's counsel, which was sent after the
telephone conference held yesterday, May 8,2013. That conference concerned
certain Standal'd Chartered Plaintiffs' request for a conference concerning
the effect of the Florida Supreme Court's decision limiting the Florida
economic loss doctrine on negligence claims in the Standard Chartered Cases.
In Mr. Smith's letter, the Bank asks that the Court reverse itself on a
decision the Court announced at the conference: that the Maridom Plaintiffs
would be permitted to amend their complaint to add a negligence claim, just
like other Standard Chartered Plaintiffs.
While this Court did not refer to the proposed negligence claim in its
initial decision to deny leave to amend, Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.,
No. 09-cv-118, 2012 WL 1415621 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13,2012), it did so in
denying the 111a.ridom Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, 283 F.RD. 193.
109 (2012) (holding amendment to add negligence count would be futile "as
the Court economic loss rule would bar claims of negligence arising from
professional services governed by a contractual relationship."),

lOO S. BISCAY NE BOULHARD, STL 1930 • MIAMI, f'tOIUDA 33Bl

WWW.THERRODSKYlAWrlRM.COM

786- 220-3328 • ItBRODSK [e-mail]\WFlRM.COM

From: Richard E. Brodsky

To: Hon. Victor Marrero

Fax: (888) 391·5819

Fax: [phone]·6382

Page 3 of 3 5/9/2013 4:03

Honorable Victor Marrero
May 9,2013
Page 2

There is, however, no question that the futility doctrine was not the
only reason that Yom' Honor denied my clients leave in 2012 to add this
claim. The question is whether it is logical, fair or otherwise required that, at
the same time as other plaintiffs are allowed to add this claim to their
lawsuits, the Maridom Plaintiffs should not be allowed to add it to theirs.
Fairness and logic dictate that this amendment be permitted. To follow the
Defendants' request would unfairly, arbitrarily and unjustifably elevate form
over substance.
The Maridom Plaintiffs are constrained by Your Honor's comments at
the conference to avoid attempting to bring up any other issue. Instead, they
request that Your Honor adhere to the ruling made at the conference related
to the Maridom Plaintiffs.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Sincerely yours,

cc:

Counsel for Standard Chartered Defendants
Counsel for all Standard Chartered Plaintiffs

. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter into the public record
action the lette above su~mitte to the Court by

"..;liS

SO ORDERED,

DATE