Molchatsky et al v. United States Of America
Filing
17
NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 5 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document filed by United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Authority)(Ehrlich, Jeffrey)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––x
:
PHYLLIS MOLCHATSKY and
:
STEVEN SCHNEIDER, M.D.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––x
09 CIV 8697 (LTS/AJP)
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
The United States respectfully submits, in further support of its motion to dismiss for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, the attached pertinent and significant authority rendered since the
United States filed its reply brief.
On April 20, 2010, the United States District Court for the Central District of California
issued its decision in Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States, CV-09-9061 SVW
(FMOx). That case, like this one, was brought by investors in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme
who alleged that the SEC negligently failed to detect and disclose Madoff’s wrongdoing. The
court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss based on the discretionary function exception.
Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
PHYLLIS J. PYLES
Director, Torts Branch
s/ Sarah S. Normand
SARAH S. NORMAND
NEIL M. CORWIN
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street, Third Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-637-2709
sarah.normand@usdoj.gov
neil.corwin@usdoj.gov
MARY M. LEACH
Assistant Director, Torts Branch
s/ Jeffrey Paul Ehrlich
JEFFREY PAUL EHRLICH
Trial Attorney, Torts Branch
Department of Justice
Benjamin Franklin Station
P.O. Box 888
Washington, D.C. 20044
202-353-2574
jeff.ehrlich@usdoj.gov
2
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?