United States of America v. Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL et al
Filing
286
OPINION & ORDER: Upon consideration of the motion by the United States for leave to effect service of the Summons and Complaint in this matter upon defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, Ellissa Holding Company, and Ayash Exchange Company though the ir United States counsel via Federal Express, and for the issuance of letters rogatory to the appropriate judicial authorities of the Republics of Lebanon, Togo, and Benin for the service of the Summons and Complaint upon defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, Ellissa Holding Company, Hassan Ayash Exchange Company, Salhab Travel Agency, STE Marco SAL, and STE Nomeco SAL, it is hereby ordered that the motion is GRANTED. It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of Court shall reissue a summons stating that the in personam defendants must serve their respective answers to the Complaint on or before July 6, 2012. It is further ordered that certified copies of the (1) Complaint, (2) Summons, and (3) the Courts Individual Rules in Civil Cases (attach ed) be issued. It is further ordered that the government serve via Federal Express certified copies of the documents set forth above on United States counsel in this action for defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, Ellissa Holding Company, and Ayas h Exchange Company. It is, finally, ordered that letters rogatory are to issue, with one original to be retained in the Courts files, and another original to be certified by the Clerk and delivered to the Assistant United States Attorney Jason H. Cowley for translation and transmittal through suitable channels to the appropriate judicial authorities in the Republics of Lebanon, Togo, and Benin. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/6/2012) (cd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
-v:
:
:
LEBANESE CANADIAN BANK SAL et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
11 Civ. 9186 (PAE)
OPINION & ORDER
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
The United States moves for (1) leave to effect service of the Summons and Complaint in
this matter by alternative means, upon defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, Ellissa
Holding Company, and Hassan Ayash Exchange Company, and (2) issuance of letters rogatory
as to the Republic of Lebanon, Togo, and Benin. Specifically, the government seeks authority to
effect service on LCB, Ellissa, and Ayash via service by mail on the respective counsel who have
appeared for each entity in connection with in rem proceedings in this action. LCB opposes the
government’s motion as to alternative service, but not as to letters rogatory. Neither Ellissa nor
Ayash submitted a response to the government’s motion. For the reasons that follow, the motion
is granted in full.
I.
Background
1
1
The facts which form the basis of this Opinion are drawn from the parties’ submissions in this
matter, including: the Verified Complaint (Dkt. 1); the Government’s Motion for Permission to
Effect Service Through Alternative Means and Issuance of Letters Rogatory (Dkt. 227)
(“Motion”); LCB’s Opposition to the Government’s Motion (Dkt. 252) (“Opp.”). Unless
otherwise noted, the facts are not disputed.
[1]
On December 15, 2011, the United States brought this in rem forfeiture action and civil
money laundering complaint against multiple Lebanese financial institutions, as well as against
various United States-based used car purchasers. The action arises out of an investigation,
conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and other federal law enforcement agencies,
into an alleged scheme to launder money, through the U.S. financial system and the used car
market, for the benefit of Hizballah, designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S.
Department of State, based in Lebanon.
Defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL (“LCB”), Ellissa Holding Company
(“Ellissa”), and Hassan Ayash Exchange Company (“Ayash”) are headquartered in Lebanon.
Defendants Salhab Travel Agency (“Salhab”) and STE Marco SARL (“Marco”) are located in
Togo. Defendant STE Nomeco SARL (“Nomeco”) is located in Benin. Lebanon, Togo, and
Benin are not parties to the Hague Service Convention. See Convention on the Service Abroad
of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, 658
U.N.T.S. 163 (Nov. 15, 1965) (“Hague Convention”).
Between March 1 and March 7, 2012, copies of the Complaint, instructions for filing a
claim in this action, and requests to waive formal service of process pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were sent by commercial carrier to LCB, Ayash, and Ellissa at
addresses in Lebanon. The packages sent to LCB and Ayash were delivered successfully; the
packages sent to Ellissa were not delivered.
Between March 1 and March 7, 2012, copies of the Complaint, instructions for filing a
claim in this action, and requests to waive formal service of process pursuant to Rule 4(d) were
sent by commercial carrier to Salhab and Marco at addresses in Togo. The packages sent to
[2]
Salhab were not delivered successfully; Marco is reported to have refused to accept the
packages.
Between March 6 and March 7, 2012, copies of the Complaint, instructions for filing a
claim in this action, and requests to waive formal service of process pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were sent by commercial carrier to Nomeco at an address in
Benin. The packages sent to Nomeco were delivered successfully.
On April 9, 2012, LCB filed a claim in the forfeiture action. In its claim, LCB asserted:
“Claimant’s appearance is expressly restricted to the defense of this claim, and the Verified
Claim does not constitute an appearance for any other purpose, nor does it confer jurisdiction
over Claimant.” Dkt. 183.
In a letter dated April 12, 2012, the government requested additional time to serve LCB,
Ayash, Ellissa, Salhab, Marco, and Nomeco, citing difficulties in perfecting service on those
foreign entities. The government represented that it had retained counsel in Lebanon to assist the
government in serving the entities in Lebanon, identified counsel in Togo to assist in serving the
entities in Togo, and engaged State Department representatives in Benin to locate local counsel
to assist in serving Nomeco.
On April 13, 2012, Ayash and Ellissa filed claims in the forfeiture action. In their claims,
Ayash and Ellissa asserted: “Claimant’s appearance is expressly restricted to the defense of this
claim, and the Verified Claim does not constitute an appearance for any other purpose, nor does
it confer jurisdiction over Claimant.” Dkts. 191 & 192.
[3]
On April 23, 2012, counsel for LCB entered a “restricted appearance” in this matter for
the purpose of moving to dismiss the government’s Verified Complaint for lack of in rem
2
jurisdiction over its assets.
On May 4, 2012, the government filed its motion to effect service on LCB, Ayash, and
Ellissa through alternative means, and for the issuance of letters rogatory to Lebanon, Togo, and
Benin. On May 18, 2012, LCB filed its opposition to the motion to effect service through
alternative means; LCB does not oppose the government’s motion for letters rogatory. Ayash
and Ellissa did not submit a response to the government’s motion.
Claims in this matter have been filed on behalf of LCB, all assets of Ayash, and all assets
of Ellissa. Salhab, Marco, and Nomeco have not filed claims.
II.
Legal Standard
Under Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, service may be effected upon
individuals in foreign countries by any of three mechanisms: (1) “any internationally agreed
means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the
[Hague Convention]”; (2) “by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice,” for
example, “as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory”; and (3) “by other
means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)–
(3). Rule 4(h) provides that service of process on foreign corporations may be made in the same
manner as on individual defendants under Rule 4(f).
2
LCB’s motion to dismiss is sub judice. See LCB’s Mot. to Dismiss (Apr. 23, 2012) (Dkt. 200).
[4]
It is well established that “there is no hierarchy among the subsections in Rule 4(f).”
Advanced Aerofoil Techs., AG v. Todaro, No. 11-cv-9505, 2012 WL 299959, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 31, 2012). Rule 4(f)(3), which permits courts to allow service on a defendant in a foreign
country by any “means not prohibited by international agreement,” is “neither a last resort nor
extraordinary relief. It is merely one means among several which enables service of process on
an international defendant.” Id. (citing Rio Props. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015
(9th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted)). The decision of whether to order service
of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Madu,
Edozie & Madu, P.C. v. SocketWorks Ltd. Nigeria, 265 F.R.D. 106, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). To obtain the Court’s permission to utilize Rule 4(f)(3),
plaintiffs must show that “the facts and circumstances of the present case necessitate . . . district
court intervention.” Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d at 1016 (citation omitted).
III.
Discussion
The government seeks authority to effect service on LCB, Ellissa, and Ayash through
service by mail on the respective counsel who have appeared for each entity in this action. LCB
counters that its counsel properly entered a “restricted appearance” in the in rem action under the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions
(“Supplemental Rules”), thereby precluding the government from, effectively, capitalizing on
that appearance as a means to obtain personal jurisdiction in this civil litigation.
The Supplemental Rules permit counsel to make restricted appearances with respect to
certain types of in rem actions. Supplemental Rule E(8) provides:
An appearance to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim with respect to
which there has issued process in rem . . . may be expressly restricted to the
defense of such claim, and in that event is not an appearance for the purposes of
[5]
any other claim with respect to which such process is not available or has not
been served.
Where Supplemental Rule E(8) applies, service as to in personam claims must be based on
factors “unrelated to the restricted appearance” as to in rem claims. Hall v. S.V. “Jackie O,” No.
89-23, 1990 WL 198415, at *1 (D.V.I. Nov. 13, 1990).
LCB argues that the Court should not permit the government to effect service on in rem
counsel for the defendants, because doing so would violate Supplemental Rule E(8). The Court
disagrees, because Supplemental Rule E(8) does not apply here. Supplemental Rule E(8) applies
only to appearances made “to defend against an admiralty and maritime claim.” However, “Rule
E(8), by its language and read in conjunction with other relevant Supplemental Rules, does not
apply in civil forfeiture cases.” U.S. v. All Right, Title and Interest in Contents of Following
Accounts at Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., No. 95-cv-10929, 1996 WL 695671, at *14
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 1996) (“With respect to ordinary civil action[s] in which process has issued in
rem, whether an appearance to defend the res constitutes a waiver of personal jurisdiction has
been considered best left to case-by-case development.”).
In this case, the government brings its claims based on the civil forfeiture statutes, not
under admiralty or maritime laws. The cases on which LCB relies, by contrast, arise out of
maritime claims. See, e.g., Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen, 424 F.3d 852, 863
(9th Cir. 2005); Custer v. M/V “Sea Bird,” No. 08-61780, 2009 WL 901509 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31,
2009). Indeed, LCB itself acknowledges that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the
distinction between a special and general appearance has been abolished.” Def. Opp. at 2.
Those Rules apply here, and they do not provide for restricted appearances for the purposes of in
rem claims where a defendant is also the subject of in personam claims in the same action.
[6]
In absence of any international agreement to the contrary, the issue is, then, whether
service by delivery to the three defendants’ U.S. counsel would comport with constitutional due
process. Under the circumstances presented, the Court concludes that it would. LCB, Ellissa,
and Ayash are demonstrably aware of the claims brought by the government. All three have
retained counsel in order to contest the same allegations—albeit in the context of the in rem
claims for property—that serve as the basis for the in personam claims. Finally, the government
has represented—and LCB has not disputed—that counsel has necessarily consulted with their
foreign entity clients with respect to the extent of their counsel’s authority in this case. Under
these circumstances, the Court is confident that authorizing such alternate service would not
deprive these defendant entities of fair notice of this lawsuit.
In evaluating whether alternative service is “necessitate[d]”, Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d
at 1016, district courts in this Circuit have generally required: “(1) a showing that the plaintiff
has reasonably attempted to effectuate service on the defendant, and (2) a showing that the
circumstances are such that the court’s intervention is necessary.” Devi v. Rajapaska, No. 11-cv6634, 2012 WL 309605, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2012); see, e.g., Madu, Edozie & Madu, 265
F.R.D. 106; Prediction Co. v. Rajgarhia, No. 09-cv-7459, 2010 WL 1050307, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 22, 2010); SEC v. Anticevic, No. 05-cv-6991, 2009 WL 361739, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13,
2009).
The government has comfortably made those showings. First, it has taken reasonable
steps to effect service on LCB, Ellissa, and Ayash: It mailed waiver of service packages (which
were received by both LCB and Ayash) in March, and after counsel for the three entities made
appearances in this action, it asked counsel of record to accept or waive service on the entities’
behalf. In fact, the Court twice extended the deadline to effect service on these defendants based
[7]
on the government’s representation that it was engaged in good-faith discussions with defense
counsel in an effort to obtain a waiver of service. See Dkts. 233 & 257. Second, the Court’s
intervention is, clearly, necessary. Lebanon is not a party to the Hague Convention, and thus
alternative methods of service otherwise available under Rule 4(f)(1) are unavailable here. See,
e.g., Ehrenfeld v. Salim a Bin Mahfouz, No. 04-cv-9641, 2005 WL 696769, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
23, 2005) (granting alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) where defendant resided in Saudi
Arabia, a non-party to the Hague Convention). Additionally, the government has already
requested that the defendants’ U.S. counsel accept or waive service on their behalf, but counsel
declined to do so.
This action involves a large number of foreign and domestic entities. Many are subject to
asset restraints pursuant to the Court’s December 16, 2011, Restraining Order (Dkt. 2). Motion
practice is underway (in some instances, resolved) as to some of these restraints. The Court
intends to expedite this litigation, and to proceed to the merits of the government’s claims as
quickly as realistically possible, so as to minimize the harm worked by such restraints. Although
it is possible that the government may eventually effect service under Rule 4(f)(2) via letters
rogatory to Lebanon pursuant to this Opinion and Order, there is no assurance that that will
happen soon. LCB has not made any persuasive argument as to why this Court should prevent
the government from utilizing alternative service now, or why such service should wait until the
letters rogatory process runs its course. Such service, and expedition of this consequential
litigation, is clearly in the public interest and the interest of all parties, viewed collectively.
Accordingly, because the government has shown that it has made all reasonable efforts to effect
service on LCB, Ellissa, and Ayash, because alternative service on foreign entities is authorized
by Rule 4(f), because alternative service is not prohibited by any international agreement, and
[8]
because the circumstances convincingly demonstrate that intervention by the Court is necessary
and in the public interest, the Court grants the government’s motion and authorizes both
mechanisms of alternative service.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the motion by the United States for leave to effect service of the
Summons and Complaint in this matter upon defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, Ellissa
Holding Company, and Ayash Exchange Company though their United States counsel via
Federal Express, and for the issuance of letters rogatory to the appropriate judicial authorities of
the Republics of Lebanon, Togo, and Benin for the service of the Summons and Complaint upon
defendants Lebanese Canadian Bank SAL, Ellissa Holding Company, Hassan Ayash Exchange
Company, Salhab Travel Agency, STE Marco SAL, and STE Nomeco SAL, it is hereby ordered
that the motion is GRANTED.
It is hereby ordered that the Clerk of Court shall reissue a summons stating that the in
personam defendants must serve their respective answers to the Complaint on or before July 6,
2012.
It is further ordered that certified copies of the (1) Complaint, (2) Summons, and (3) the
Court’s Individual Rules in Civil Cases (attached) be issued.
It is further ordered that the government serve via Federal Express certified copies of the
documents set forth above on United States counsel in this action for defendants Lebanese
Canadian Bank, SAL, Ellissa Holding Company, and Ayash Exchange Company.
It is, finally, ordered that letters rogatory are to issue, with one original to be retained in
the Court’s files, and another original to be certified by the Clerk and delivered to the Assistant
[9]
United States Attorney Jason H. Cowley for translation and transmittal through suitable channels
to the appropriate judicial authorities in the Republics of Lebanon, Togo, and Benin.
SO ORDERED.
fuJA.~
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
Dated: June 6, 2012
New York, New York
[10]
Revised: October 5,2011
INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PRACTICES IN CIVIL CASES
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
Chambers
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 670
New York, NY 10007
Courtroom
Courtroom 18C
500 Pearl Street
June Hummel, Courtroom Deputy
(212) 805-4893
Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Engelmayer, these Individual Practices apply to all civil
matters except for civil pro se cases.
1. Communications with Chambers
A. Letters. Except as provided below, communications with Chambers shall be by letter, with
copies simultaneously delivered to all counsel. Letters should not be filed electronically; instead,
they should simply be mailed to Chambers or hand-delivered in the manner specified below.
Copies of correspondence among counsel shall not be sent to the Court. Letters should identifY
the name and docket number ofthe case.
B. Telephone Calls. For docketing, scheduling, and calendar matters, call Ms. June Hummel,
Courtroom Deputy, at (212) 805-4893. Otherwise, telephone calls to Chambers are permitted
only for urgent matters requiring the Court's immediate attention. In such situations, call
Chambers at (212) 805-0268.
C. Faxes. Faxes to Chambers are not permitted except with the prior authorization of
Chambers, which will be given only in rare, urgent circumstances. In such situations, faxed
submissions must clearly identifY the person in Chambers who authorized the sending of a fax,
and copies must be simultaneously faxed or delivered to all counsel.
D. Hand Deliveries. Hand-delivered mail should be left with the Court Security Officers at the
Worth Street entrance ofthe Courthouse and may not be brought directly to Chambers. Hand
deliveries are continuously retrieved from the Worth Street entrance by Courthouse mail staff and
then forwarded to Chambers. However, ifthe hand-delivered letter is urgent and requires the
Court's immediate attention, ask the Court Security Officers to notifY Chambers that an urgent
package has arrived that needs to be retrieved by Chambers staff immediately.
E. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for adjournments or
extensions oftime must be made in writing and should state: (1) the original due date, the date or
dates sought to be extended, and the new date the party now seeks through an adjournment or
extension, (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extensions of time, (3) whether
these previous requests were granted or denied, and (4) whether the adversary consents, and, if
not, the reasons given by the adversary for refusing to consent. If the requested adjournment or
extension affects any other scheduled dates, a proposed Revised Scheduling Order must be
attached. Absent extraordinary circumstances, requests for extensions will be denied if not made
before the expiration ofthe original deadline. If the request is for an adjournment of a court
appearance, absent an emergency, the request shall be made at least two business days prior to
the scheduled appearance.
F. Preservation of Letters. Letters to the Court are not ordinarily docketed. If a party wishes
to preserve such letters for the record on appeal, it must submit a written request to the Court
within ten days ofclosure ofthe case.
G. Related Cases. After an action has been accepted as related to a prior filing, all future
court papers and correspondence must contain the docket number of the new filing, as well as
the docket number of the case to which it is related (e.g., II Civ. 1234 [reI. 10 Civ. 4321 D.
2. Conferences
A. Attendance by Principal Trial Counsel. The attorney who will serve as principal trial
counsel must appear at all conferences with the Court.
B. Initial Case Management Conference. The Court expects to hold a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)
conference no more than three months after the filing of a complaint. The Notice ofInitial
Pretrial Conference will be docketed on ECF; plaintiffs counsel is directed to notify all counsel
of this Order forthwith and to confirm to the Courtroom Deputy that all counsel will attend the
conference on the designated date and time. This Notice will, inter alia, direct the parties to
submit a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order to the Court at least three
business days prior to the conference date. Prior to the conference date, one courtesy copy ofthe
pleadings should be sent to Chambers.
C. Discovery Disputes. Follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. Any
party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in good faith with the
opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. If this meet-and
confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party may write a letter to the Court, no longer
than three pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting an informal conference.
Such a letter must include a representation that the meet-and-confer process occurred and was
unsuccessful. lfthe opposing party wishes to respond to the letter, it must do so within three
business days and should call Chambers promptly to advise that a responsive letter will be
forthcoming. Counsel should be prepared to discuss with the Court the matters raised by such
letters, as the Court will seek to resolve discovery disputes quickly, including by telephone
conference call.
3.
Motions
A. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except
for motions concerning discovery, which are governed by Section 2.C above, and for summary
judgment motions, which are governed by Section 3.G below.
2
B. Memoranda of Law. The Court encourages and appreciates brevity. Unless prior
permission has been granted, memoranda oflaw in support of and in opposition to motions are
limited to 25 pages, and reply memoranda are limited to 10 pages. All memoranda of law shall
be in 12-point font or larger and be double-spaced. Memoranda of 10 pages or more shall
contain a table of contents and a table of authorities, neither of which shall count against the page
limit. All appendices to memoranda of law must be tabbed and indexed.
C. Filing of Motion Papers. Motion papers shall be filed promptly after service.
D. Courtesy Copies. Two courtesy copies of all motion papers, marked as such, should be
submitted by the movant at the time the reply is served.
E. Oral Argument on Motions. Parties may request oral argument by letter at the time their
moving or opposing or reply papers are filed. The Court will determine whether argument will
be heard and, if so, will advise counsel of the argument date.
F. Motions to Dismiss. When a motion to dismiss is filed, the non-moving party must, within
ten days of receipt ofthe motion, notifY the Court and its adversary in writing whether (l) it
intends to file an amended pleading and when it will do so, or (2) it will rely on the pleading
being attacked. If the non-moving party elects not to amend its complaint, no further
opportunities to amend will be granted and the motion to dismiss will proceed in the regular
course. This provision does not alter the time to file a response in the Fed. R. Civ. P. or Local
Rules. Ifthe party amends, the opposing party may then (a) file an answer; (b) file a new motion
to dismiss; or (c) submit a letter stating that it relies on the initially-filed motion to dismiss.
G. Motions for Summary Judgment. A pre-motion conference must be requested before the
filing of a motion for summary judgment. To arrange a pre-motion conference, the moving party
shall submit a letter, not to exceed three pages in length, setting forth the basis for the anticipated
motion. Other parties shall respond similarly within three business days. Once the Court is
ready to schedule a pre-motion conference, the parties will be contacted in order to schedule the
pre-motion conference on a mutually convenient date.
H. Failure of the Court to Schedule Argument or Decide a Motion. If a motion is not
decided within 60 days of the time that it has become fully briefed, counsel for the movant shall
send a letter to alert the Court.
I. Preliminary Injunction Motions. The Court generally follows the procedure for the
conduct of non-jury trials described in Section 5.C below.
J. Default Judgments. A plaintiff seeking a default judgment must proceed by way of an order
to show cause pursuant to the procedure set forth in Attachment A.
4. Other Pretrial Guidance
A. Redactions and Filing Under Seal. Any party wishing to file in redacted form any
pleading, motion, memorandum, exhibit, or other document, or'any portion thereof, must make a
specific request to the Court by letter explaining the reasons for seeking to file that submission
3
under seaL The party must attach to its letter: (1) one full set of the relevant document(s) in
highlighted form (i.e., with the words, phrases, or paragraphs to be redacted highlighted); and (2)
one partial, looseleaf set of solely those pages on which the party seeks to redact materiaL Upon
receiving these documents, the Court will individually review the proposed redactions.
Chambers will file under seal the unredacted pages for which the Court has approved redactions,
and the party shall then file the redacted version ofthe document(s) on ECF.
B. Settlement Agreements. The Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce confidential
settlement agreements. If the parties wish that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the
agreement, the parties must place the terms of their settlement agreement on the public record.
The parties may either provide a copy of the settlement agreement for the Court to endorse or
include the terms oftheir settlement agreement in their stipulation of settlement and dismissal.
C. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases. In any action in which subject matter jurisdiction is founded
on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the party asserting the existence of such
jurisdiction shall, prior to the Initial Pretrial Conference, submit to the Court a letter no longer
than two pages explaining the basis for that party's beliefthat diversity of citizenship exists.
Where any party is a corporation, the letter shall state both the place of incorporation and the
principal place of business. In cases where any party is a partnership, limited partnership, limited
liability company, or trust, the letter shall state the citizenship of each of the entity's members,
shareholders, partners, and/or trustees.
D. Bankruptcy Appeals. Briefs must be submitted in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009
10. Counsel may extend the default deadlines by stipulation submitted to the Court no later than
two business days before the brief is due.
5. Trial Procedures
A. Joint Pretrial Order. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, within 30 days from the date
for the completion of discovery, the parties shall submit to the Court a proposed joint pretrial
order, which shall include the following:
i.
The full caption of the action;
ii.
The names, law firms, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers of trial counsel;
iii.
A brief statement by plaintiff as to the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and a
brief statement by each other party as to the presence or absence of subject matter
jurisdiction. Such statements shall include citations to all statutes relied on and
relevant facts as to citizenship and jurisdictional amount;
iv.
A brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that the party asserts
remain to be tried, including citations to any statutes on which the party relies.
Such summaries shall also identify all claims and defenses previously asserted
which are not to be tried. The summaries should not recite any evidentiary
matter;
v.
A statement as to the number of trial days needed and regarding whether the case
is to be tried with or without a jury;
vi.
A statement as to whether or not all parties have consented to trial by a magistrate
judge, without identifying which parties do or do not consent;
vii. Any stipulations or agreed statements of fact or law to which all parties consent;
4
viii.
ix.
x.
A list of all trial witnesses, indicating whether such witnesses will testify in
person or by deposition, and a brief summary of the substance of each witness's
testimony;
A designation by each party of deposition testimony to be offered in its case in
chief and any counter-designations and objections by any other party; and
A list by each party of exhibits to be offered in its case in chief, with one star
indicating exhibits to which no party objects on grounds of authenticity, and two
stars indicating exhibits to which no party objects on any ground.
B. Required Pretrial Filings. Each party shall file and serve with the joint pretrial order:
i.
In all cases, motions addressing any evidentiary issues or other matters which
should be resolved in limine;
ii.
In all cases where a party believes it would be useful to the Court, a pretrial
memorandum of law;
iii.
In jury cases, requests to charge and proposed voir dire questions; and
iv.
In non-jury cases, proposed findings offact and conclusions of law. The
proposed findings of fact should be detailed and should include citations to the
proffered trial testimony and exhibits, as there may be no opportunity for post
trial submissions.
C. Additional Submissions in Non-Jury Cases. At the time the joint pretrial order is filed,
each party shall submit to the Court and serve on opposing counsel, but not file on ECF, the
following:
i.
Copies of affidavits constituting the direct testimony of each trial witness, except
for the direct testimony of an adverse party, a person whose attendance is
compelled by subpoena, or a person for whom the Court has agreed to hear direct
testimony live at the trial. Three business days after submission of such
affidavits, counsel for each party shall submit a list of all affiants whom he or she
intends to cross-examine at the trial. Only those witnesses who will be cross
examined need to appear at trial. The original signed affidavits should be brought
to trial to be marked as exhibits;
ii.
All deposition excerpts which will be offered as substantive evidence, as well as a
one-page synopsis of those excerpts for each deposition. Each synopsis shall
include page citations to the pertinent pages ofthe deposition transcripts;
iii.
All deposition excerpts which will be offered as substantive evidence, as well as a
one-page synopsis ofthose excerpts for each deposition. Each synopsis shall
include page citations to the pertinent pages of the deposition transcripts; and
iv.
All documentary exhibits.
D. Filings in Opposition. Any party may file the following documents within one week after
the filing of the pretrial order, but in no event less than two days before the scheduled trial date:
i.
Objections to another party's requests to charge or proposed voir dire questions;
ii.
Opposition to any motion in limine; and
iii.
Opposition to any legal argument in a pretrial memorandum.
E. Courtesy Copies. Two courtesy copies of all documents identified in Sections 5.A, B, C.i
ii, and D above should be submitted to Chambers on the date on which they are to be served or
5
filed. Only one set of documentary exhibits is required. Voluminous material may be organized
either in binders or manila file folders, but in any event, the courtesy copies shall be separately
arranged into two independent sets.
F. Trial Schedule. Trials will generally be conducted Monday through Thursday from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with lunch from 12:45 p.m. to 2 p.m.
6. Policy on the Use of Electronic Devices
A. Mobile Phones and Personal Electronic Devices. Attorneys' use of mobile phones,
Blackberries, and other personal electronic devices within the Courthouse and its environs is
governed by Standing Order MlO-468. Any attorney wishing to bring a telephone or other
personal electronic device into the Courthouse must be a member ofthis Court's Bar, must obtain
the necessary service pass from the District Executive's Office, and must show the service pass
upon entering the Courthouse. Mobile phones are permitted inside the Courtroom, but must
be kept turned off at all times. Non-compliance with this rule will result in forfeiture ofthe
device for the remainder ofthe proceedings.
B. Computers, Printers, or Other Electronic Equipment. In order for an attorney to bring
into the Courthouse any computer, printer, or other electronic equipment not qualifying as a
"personal electronic device," specific authorization is required by prior Court Order. Any party
seeking to bring such equipment into the Courthouse should send a letter to Chambers at least 10
business days in advance ofthe relevant trial or hearing requesting permission to use such
equipment. The request letter shall identify the type(s) of equipment to be used and the name(s)
of the attorney(s) who will be using the equipment. Chambers will coordinate with the District
Executive's Office to issue the Order and forward a copy to counsel. The Order must be shown
upon bringing the equipment into the Courthouse.
6
ATTACHMENT A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEDURE
I.
Prepare an Order to Show Cause for default judgment and make the Order returnable before
Judge Engelmayer in Courtroom 18C. Leave blank the date and time of the conference. Judge
Engelmayer will set the date and time when he signs the Order.
2.
Provide the following supporting papers with the Order to Show Cause:
a.
an attorney's affidavit setting forth:
(i)
the basis for entering a default judgment, including a description of the method
and date of service of the summons and complaint;
(ii)
the procedural history beyond service of the summons and complaint, if any;
(iii) whether, if the default is applicable to fewer than all of the defendants, the Court
may appropriately order a default judgment on the issue of damages prior to
resolution of the entire action;
(iv) the proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages, including
interest, attorney's fees, and costs; and
(v)
legal authority for why an inquest into damages would be unnecessary.
h.
c.
d.
e.
a proposed default judgment.
copies of all of the pleadings.
a copy of the affidavit of service of the summons and complaint.
if failure to answer is the basis for the default, a Certificate from the Clerk of Court
stating that no answer has been filed.
3.
Take the Order to Show Cause and supporting papers to the Orders and Judgments Clerk (Room
240,500 Pearl Street) for initial review and approval.
4.
After the Orders and Judgments Clerk approves the Order to Show Cause, bring all of the papers
to Chambers (Room 670, 500 Pearl Street) for the Judge's signature. Also bring a courtesy copy
of the supporting papers to leave with Chambers.
5.
After the Judge signs the Order, serve a conforming copy of the Order and supporting papers on
the defendant. (Chambers will retain the original signed Order for docketing purposes, but will
supply you with a copy. You may also print a copy of the signed Order from the CMlECF system
after the Order has been docketed.)
6.
Prior to the return date, file through the CMIECF system: (1) an affidavit of service, reflecting
that the defendant was served with a conforming copy of the Order and supporting papers; and (2)
the supporting papers. (The signed Order itself will be scanned and docketed by Chambers.)
7.
Prior to the return date, take the proposed judgment, separately backed, to the Orders and
Judgments Clerk (Room 240,500 Pearl Street) for the Clerk's approval. The proposed judgment,
including all damage and interest calculations, must be approved by the Clerk prior to the
conference and then brought to the conference for the Judge's signature.
7
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?