Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1141

DECISION AND ORDER: That ruling now stands as the law of the case on the grounds there articulated. Accordingly, the Court does not have before it any decision, or any recognized procedural means by which to rescind it or take it back and the Maridom plaintiffs have pointed to none. In particular, there is no basis predicated on Florida's economic loss rule that would warrant permitting the Maridom plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include negligence claims based on the clarification of Florida's economic loss rule in Tiara Condo. On this basis, therefore, the Court concludes that the May 8 Order cannot extend to permit the Maridom plaintiffs at this time to amend their complaint to add the negligence claims the Court on other grounds had denied them leave to plead. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/10/2013) (js)

'..ll'&DC S :<Y

'\ DOCtJME~ r
: r:ECTRO:"fCALLY FlLaD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

) 0('1;: -~--,---4tTb-::-:f~~

--------------------------------X .! DATE FILFl):
I'

PASHA ANWAR, et al.,

I

Plaintiffs,

:::

09 Civ. 0118

(VM)

DECISION AND ORDER

-againstFAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
Defendants.

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

VICTOR MARRERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On May 8, 2013,
with

the

ruling

parties

by

the

the Court held a telephone conference

in

this

Florida

action

to

Supreme

discuss

Court

in

the

recent

Tiara

Condo

Association Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., SC10­
1022,

2013 WL 828003

clarified

Florida's

application

(Fla.

Mar.

economic

solely

to

7,

loss

products

2013).
rule

and

liability

That decision
limited

its

litigation.

Because this Court had relied on Florida courts'

case law

prior to Tiara Condo in dismissing negligence claims that
various plaintiffs had asserted in the instant action,

the

Court ruled during that conference that plaintiffs would be
permitted to amend their complaints to replead negligence
claims

to

the

extent

they
-1­

were

previously

dismissed

or

disallowed specifically on the basis of Florida's economic
loss rule.
the

Court

By Order dated May 8, 2013 (the "May 8 Order"),
reaffirmed

its

rUling.

It

granted plaintiffs

"leave to amend their complaints to replead the negligence
claims that were previously dismissed or disallowed on the
basis of

Florida s
I

economic

loss

rule."

(Dkt.

No.

1137

(emphasis added) . )
By letter dated May 8,
Defendants

("Standard

2013,

Chartered")

the Standard Chartered
wrote

to

"clarify

record and the application of the Court's ruling
respect

to

Ltd.

International

(Americas)

( "Maridom") ."

(Dkt.

v.

Ltd.,

No.

Standard

Chartered

Complaint

argued

that,

requested

while

leave

to

at
the

not,

Id. at 2.)

file

included a negligence claim,

Bank

(S.D.N.Y.)

Specifically,

"operative

and never

did,

Amended
assert

a

Standard Chartered further

Maridom
a

1.)

[ ] with

Chartered

10-CV-920

that

noted

the

No.

1139

in Maridom does

negligence claim."

Standard

the

plaintiffs

previously

Second Amended Complaint

that

the Court denied that request

for several reasons and did not base its decision solely on
Florida's economic loss rule.
dated May 9,

2013,

(Id.

at 2-3.)

By letter

the Maridom plaintiffs responded that,

while Florida's economic loss rule was not the only reason
2­

that the Court denied the Maridom plaintiffs'
leave

to

amend,

" [f] airness

and

amendment should be permitted."
The

Court's

conference,

clear

logic

rule.

that

this

intent

during

the

May

8,

2013,

as expressly affirmed in the May 8 Order,

claims

disallowed

dictate

(Dkt. No. 1138 at 2.)

that plaintiffs would be permitted to
negligence

request for

that

were

explicitly on

the

replead only those

previously
basis

was

of

dismissed

the

economic

or
loss

In denying the Maridom plaintiffs' prior request for

leave to amend,

the Court concluded that in the case of the

Maridom plaintiffs
to amend

.

"there has been undue delay in seeking

and there has not been a

cause for that delay."

(Dkt.

No.

853

showing of good

at 6.)

The Court

further held that "permitting the proposed amendments
would

inevitably

result

concluded

that

[Standard

in

Chartered]."

plaintiffs'

"granting

request

for

significant

leave

to

Id.
leave

limited to a negligence claim,
add additional defendants,

delay"

amend

would

Therefore,
to

amend

-

the
which

and

thus

prejudice
Maridom
was

not

but also requested leave to

claims,

and factual allegations

- was not denied solely on the basis of Florida's economic
loss

rule,

but

rather

on

the

-3­

basis

of

"undue

delay

in

seeking to amend" without \\a showing of good cause for that
delay.

Id.

II

That ruling now stands as the law of the case on the
grounds there articulated.

Accordingly, the Court does not

have before it any decision,
means

by

which

to

rescind

or any recognized procedural
it

or

take

Maridom plaintiffs

have pointed to none.

there

predicated

it

rule

is

no

basis

on

Florida's

back

and

the

In particular,
economic

loss

that would warrant permitting the Maridom plaintiffs

to amend their complaint to include negligence claims based
on

the

clarification of

Tiara Condo.

Florida's

economic

loss

rule

in

On this basis, therefore, the Court concludes

that the May 8 Order cannot extend to permi t

the Maridom

plaintiffs at this time to amend their complaint to add the
negligence

claims

the

Court

on

other

grounds

them leave to plead.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York
10 May 2013
VICTOR MARRERO
U.S.D.J

-4­

had denied