Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al
Filing
1267
ORDER: that Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SCCAC") to reassert negligence-based initial investment claims against defendants The Citco Group Ltd.; Citco Fund Services (Europe) B. V.; Citco (Canada) Inc.; Citco Global Custody N.V.; Citco Bank Nederland, N.V., Dublin Branch; and Citco Fund Services (Bermuda) Ltd. (collectively, the "Citco Defendants"). The Citco Defendants may request an extension of the expert discovery deadline upon a sufficient showing of the nature and scope of such expert discovery necessary by reason of Plaintiffs' amendment of the SCCAC at this time. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 5/13/2014) (tn)
. 'I.JSDC SONY'
;,'
, DOCU~1ENT
. '.
~ LLrCTRONICA:L[tFii~b: :'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ii DOC #:
----- ----------- ------- --------X
.
.: DATE FfLED
--,-
:,--'
,
"
"
,
09 Civ. 0118
PASHA S. ANWAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
against
FAIRFIELD GREENWICH LIMITED,
et al.,
Defendants.
------ --- ---x
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
By Order dated March 27,
"2014 Order"),
Order
dated
(Dkt.
2014
No.
1256)
(the
the Court clarified that in the Decision and
August
6,
(Dkt.
2012
No.
(the
910)
"2012
Order"), the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs' negligencebased
initial
investment
who
defendants
"Defendants"
were
claims
against
in
included
in the 2012 Order.
the
(Dkt.
No.
all
of
defined
910,
the
term
at 1 2.)
This defined term included defendants The Citco Group Ltd.;
Citco
Fund
Citco
Global
Dublin
Services
(Europe)
Custody
Branch;
and
N.V.;
Citco
B.V.;
Citco
Fund
the
2014
Order
t
Bank
(Canada)
Inc.;
Nederland,
N.V.,
Services
(collectively, the "Citco Defendants
Following
Citco
)
•
the
proposed
pre-motion conference
motion
to
amend
the
1
Ltd.
ff
Court
letter from Plaintiffs dated April 17, 2014
requesting a
(Bermuda)
received
(Dkt. No. 1260)
to address
Second
the
Plaintiffs'
Consolidated
Class
Action
initial
investments
The Court also
to
("SCCAC" )
Complaint
claims
reassert
against
received letters
the
17,
April
23,
1264,
and
1266,
respectively)
proposed
as
motion,
and April
Plaintiffs dated April 24,
2014
Defendants.
Citco Defendants
24,
2014
(Dkt.
opposing
the
as
well
Citco
from the
dated April
1263
negligence-based
reply
(Dkt.
No.
Nos.
Plaintiffs'
letter
1265)
from
in further
support of Plaintiffs' proposed motion.
The Court's
initial
2012
dismissal of
investment
Order,
the
repled only
if
claims
Court
Plaintiffs'
was
without
noted
fs
Plaint
that
ei ther
members of a certified class fact,
known
to
the
now
propose
showing
amending
Administrators
No.
1260
Plaintiffs'
the
SCCAC
at
2)
to
and
initial
their
to
335(a)-(c).)
amendments
engaged in
Plaintiffs
are
now
lito
11
known
to
the
or as
claim
at
3i
allegations
the
that
Citco
that
to
Citco
including
id.
"the
supported
(Dkt.
prior
Funds,
see
in
Plaintiffs
linking conduct
(Id.
be
initial
investments"
in
strongly
-2
their
clarify
"demonstrate
communications with investors.
~~
the
may
individuals
to
initial
investment
Administrators
claims
910 at 9.)
were
prior
as
prior
(Dkt. No.
Plaintiffs
that
[s] uch
II
In
prejudice.
can show that they were,
Defendants
investment in the Funds."
negligence based
by
Exh.
A
proposed
evidence
obtained
through
Plaintiffs
discovery.
allege
that
prior
Citco received investors'
name,
country of
to
Specifically,
3.}
Plaintiffs'
and various
allegations
investments,
forms
including
of
Plaintiffs
contact
claim
were
The Court
(Dkt. No. 1265 at 2.)
discovery.
established
at
subscription requests,
residence,
which
information
Id.
/I
is persuaded that such facts provide the proper basis for
Plaintiffs to satisfy the conditions for repleading, as set
forth in the 2012 Order.
The Court finds
not
unduly
that an amendment to the SCCAC would
prejudice
the
Citco
Defendants
because
the
proposed amendments are based on operative facts that have
already been the subject of fact discovery.
Citco
Defendants
amendment
of
additional
request
expert
for
discovery
the
an
can
make
SCCAC
at
sufficient
showing
time
give
this
discovery,
extension
demonstrating
supplemental
a
expert
would
Court
of
the
the
nature
discovery
Insofar as the
will
deadl
and
rise
consider
for
scope
necessary
by
that
to
a
expert
of
reason
such
of
Plaintiffs' amendment of the SCCAC at this time.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the
Second
Consolidated
Class
Action
Complaint
("SCCAC")
reassert negligence-based initial investment claims
-3
to
inst
defendants
(Europe)
The
B. V.
i
Citco
Inc.
N.V.;
Citco Bank Nederland,
Fund
Services
Defendants")
i
ORDERED
extension
of
Citco
Ltd.;
(Canada)
Ci tco
Group
(Bermuda)
N.V.,
Ltd.
i
Fund
Ci tco
Global
Services
Custody
Branch; and Citco
Dubl
(collectively,
the
"Citco
and it is further
that
the
the
Citco
expert
Defendants
discovery
may
request
deadline
upon
an
a
sufficient showing of the nature and scope of such expert
discovery necessary by reason of
Plaintiffs'
amendment of
the SCCAC at this time.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
13 May 2014
Victor Marrero
U.S.D.J.
-4
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?