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)

From: Richard E. Brodsky

Fax: [phone]

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 [phone]

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 • [e-mail]

From: Richard E. Brodsky

Fax: (888) 391·S819

To: Hon. Victor Marrero

Fa>': [phone]

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: [phone]

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;;&~#~~~~