Anwar et al v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited et al

Filing 439

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz from Sharon L. Nelles dated 5/3/10 re: Request for an extension of time to respond and reply to Motions to Dismiss. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants were not granted leave to file a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and, therefore, they should not have filed the Motion. Accordingly, the motion papers (Docket Entries # 436 and 437) shall be stricken. Plaintiffs should file their opposition to the original motion as scheduled. SO ORDERED., Motions terminated: (436 in 1:09-cv-00118-VM-THK) SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Dismiss On the Newly-Arisen Ground That Plaintiffs' Common-Law Claims are Preempted by SLUSA. filed by Standard Chartered PLC, Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Limited, Standard Chartererd Bank, Standard Chartered Private Bank, Standard Chartered International (USA) Ltd. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz on 5/3/10) (db)

-

05/03/2010

1 5 : 1 7 FAX

1212 5 5 8 3 3 5 8

S & C LLP 1 2 5 BD 26FL

a 002/004

SULLIVAN

CROMWELL LLP

.

f25 B-I./ % 0 A f %wk, .M#0004-X#S &i .L O ANOELEI ~
a

PAL0 ALTO

.

WASUIYCTON. 0 C.
PbAlb

FRANKFURT. IPYIION

BEIJING. HONC )(ONGarO**o MELPXIINS lPmNtW

May 3,2010

~onorabl;Theodore H. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge, Daniel Patrick Moynihm United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Ncw York,New York Re:

Pasha Anwar, d al. v. Fairfield Greenwich Limited, pt al., M ster File No. e 09-CV-118 (VM); Hhatia v. Standard Chartered Int '1 (US , td ,No. 09l CV-24 10; Tradewaves Ltd. V. Standard Chartered In erna io a1 (USA) Lld, No. 09-CV-9423; Ileudway Investment Corp. v.Americdn Fqres-.~.~ Rank Ltd., No. 09-CV-08500; Ihpcz v. Stnlodnrd Chdrret-eY Bunk

1

:f

Dcar Magistrate Judge Katz: We write on behalf of Standard Chartered Defendants in res onse to the letter tiled earlier this morning on behalf of plaintiffs in the cases collectively ref ed to as the "Standard Chartcrcd Cascs."

-

tj, ~

As counsel for plaintiffs note in their letter, Standard Chartcrcd Dcfcndants seek
to supplenlent their motions, filed on March 10,2010, to dismiss the Standad Chartered Cases to add a discrete additional ground for dismissal that arose on April 16,2010, when this Court consolidated Jose A. Pwnls, el al. v. Standard Chartered Bank Internnrionul (Americm) Lrd., c?t nl., Case No. 10-CV-2878, with Pasha An war, et al. v. F'aig'leld Greenwich Limited, et al., Mastcr File N o . 09-CV-118. Specifically, a s a result of the April 16, 2010 consolidation order, plaintiffs' common-law claims are preernptcd b y the Sccui-itics Litigation Uniform Standards Act

of 1998 ("SLUSA").

05/03/2010 15:17 F A X

1212 558 3358

S8C L L P 125 B O 26FL

Q 003/004

Honorable Thendore H . Katz Thc tirning of thc filing of Standard Chartcrcd Dcfcndants' supple~ne~~tal motion is in no way intended to cause any prejudice to plaintiffs. Rather, Standard C h i m c d Defendants bring this motion barely two weeks from the date the new ground arose. Moreover, Standard Chartered Defendants contacted plaintiffs7counsel. last Friday, before filing any motion, so that the parties could confer on a appropriate briefing schedule for plaintiffs' n objections.

With respect to the specific concerns set forth in plaintiffs7 letter, Standard Chartered Defendants are in the process of electronically filing their supplemental motion. A copy of that motion and supporting papers has been sent to plaintill's' munscl togcthcr with this letter and a courtesy copy is being delivered to your IIonor. Thus plaintiffs need not be concerned that "Standard Chartered will have seen Plaintiffs' opposition briefs before filing their supplemental papers."
Further, the SLUSA argumcnt is cntircly discrctc from the arguments raised in the papcrv l i l d by Standard Chartered Defendants on March 10,20 10. Thus, Standad Chartmd Defendants proposcd a schedule whereby plaintiffs would have until May 28,2010 to raisc thcir arguments in opposition to Standard Chartcrcd Dcfcndants' supplcmcntal motiou both proccdural and substantive -- .and Standard C h a r t e d Defendants would have until June 4,2010 to reply. June 4 is also thc day when Standard C h a r t e d Dcfcndants rcply papcrs are due on the motions submitted on March 10. '~h'hus, schedule Staidard Chartered Defendants proposed the would have preserved thc schedule entered by the Court on April 15,2010, whcrcby all the motions to dismiss would be fully briefed and subjudics on June 4. Plaintiffs do not agree to this proposal, however, .and request 72 hours to make procedural arguments and then 10 days tiom the time those procedural arguments are resolved to incorporate substantive arguments into their opposition papers otherwise due today.

--

S t a n h d C.:hartered Defendants disagree that there should be bifiucated briefing
on plaintiffs' objections. Standard Chartered Defendants do not object, however, to plaintiffs'

suggestion that they be given 10 additional days "to incorporate their response to the supplemcntd pap