Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 1429

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Richard E. Brodsky dated 10/13/2015 re: By endorsement order dated October 9, 2015 (DE 1428), Your Honor has directed the "Plaintiffs" to respond to the Standard Chartered Defendants' letter to the Court dated October 8, 2015. 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. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 10/14/2015) (tn)

Download PDF
From: Richard E. Brodsky Fax: 1888) 391-5819 To: Hon. Victor Marrero Fait: +1 (212; 805-6382 THE BRODSKY LAW FIRM, Page 2 of 4 1011312015 6:3S PM PL RICHARD E. BRODSKY, AITORNEY AT LAW October 13, 2015 By Facsimile Transmission to (212) 805-6382 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. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, et al. 09-cv-118 (VM) (THK) Standard Chartered Cases Dear Judge Marrero: By endorsement order dated October 9, 2015 (DE 1428), Your Honor has directed the "Plaintiffs" to respond to the Standard Chartered Defendants' letter to the Court dated October 8, 2015. (We have asked the Court for an extension to respond but have now determined that we do not need the requested extension.) The Standard Chartered Plaintiffs have varying interests in the matters raised in the Defendants' letter. Some have no involvement in these matters. Thus, I am not writing this letter on behalf of the Standard Chartered Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, which, because the Plaintiffs have different interests, has had no role, as such, in responding. Nevertheless, I have been authorized to provide you this letter, which presents the common positions of the various Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs believe that, in whatever manner the three issues raised by the Standard Chartered Defendants are ultimately decided, none needs to be decided by this Court as "transferee court," and there is no reason that resolution of any of these issues should delay remand. 200 S. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, STE. 1930 •MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 WWW.THEBRODSKYLAWFIRM.COM 786-220-3328 • RBRODSKY@THEBRODSKYLAWFIRM.COM From: Richard E. Brodsky Fax: (888) 391·S819 To: Hon. Victor Marrero Fa>': +1 (2121 805-6382 Page 3 of 4 1011312015 6:3S PM Hon. Victor Marrero October 13, 2015 Page 2 The first issue raised by the Defendants is a negligence count. The Court has allowed certain plaintiffs to re-plead, in a common negligence claim, individual negligence claims that the Court previously dismissed, but agreement on the wording of the common claim has not been reached. Those Plaintiffs permitted to re-plead, who agree on a common negligence count, will reach out immediately to defense counsel to try to reach agreement, as suggested by the Defendants. The Defendants imply that this issue should be decided before this Court remands ("Otherwise, this is not an impediment to remand."). To the contrary, the Plaintiffs, including those not permitted (or required) to replead this claim, believe that this process shou1d not hold up the Court's consideration of remand. Doing so would cause unnecessary and prejudicial further delay for those not permitted (or required) to re-plead this claim. The issue can easily be handled by the transferor courts, or by this Court should the parties and the Court agree to the cases' staying with this Court for trial. The second issue deals with seven Plaintiffs who unsuccessfully sought to dismiss their claims. They should now be permitted to do so. The Plaintiffs commit that none of the other Plaintiffs will argue that the dismissal of those complaints affects the Court's July 29, 2015 SLUSA decision. The Defendants state that while "any issue regarding these seven plaintiffs remaining in their respective cases should be resolved prior to remand of those cases, there is no reason the dismissal of these seven plaintiffs cannot now be expediently addressed." The other unaffected Plaintiffs sincerely hope that this will be the case, but, again, request that this Court not delay addressing our request for a conference to discuss remand. The third issue is delayed discovery of some Plaintiffs. This delay was separately agreed to by some but not all of the Plaintiffs. Again, those Plaintiffs who were not a party to the delay of discovery, and who have already submitted to the Defendants' discovery, should not be prejudiced by delay caused by the completion of the discovery as to the other Plaintiffs. There is no logical reason to prevent the remand of the unaffected cases from going forward. In the alternative, all the cases can be remanded and the limited discovery can be completed before trial. Page 4 of 4 1011 '312015 6:3S PM To: Hon. Victor Marrero From: Richard E. Brodsky FaY·. +1 i212) 805-6382 Fax: (888) 391-5819 Hon. Victor Marrero October 13, 2015 Page 3 Thank you for your careful consideration of this letter. Sincerely yours, cc: SC Plaintiffs' Counsel SC Defendants' Counsel The ~!erk of Court is directed to · . o1f !t11}llctio_:i the letter abo ben.ter mto the public record ~ , L1 , ve su mitted to the Court by ~ c;;&~#~~~~

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?