Chill et al v. Calamos Advisors LLC et al

Filing 168

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 65 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 88 Motion; denying 106 Motion; denying 109 Motion; denying 112 Motion; denying 115 Motion; denying 118 Motion: Before the Court are several mot ions. Defendant Calamos Advisors LLC moves for summary judgment against Plaintiffs Saul and Sylvia Chill. Doc. 65. In connection with the motion, both parties have moved, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to exclud e certain expert testimony. Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118. The Court has provided the parties with a copy of its Opinion. The Opinion has not been posted publicly. The parties have until the end of business Wednesday, October 3, 2018, to provide the Court with their recommendations, on consent, of the matters that ought to be redacted in accordance with the Protective Order entered herein, Doc. 32. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, Calamos' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as Calamos seeks to establish that Plaintiffs have failed to raise triable issues of fact related to economies of scale and fall-out benefits, and DENIED insofar as Calamos seeks judgment as a matter of law on the other Gartenberg factors an d Section 36(b) liability generally. Moreover, the parties' Daubert motions are DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the summary judgment motion, Doc. 65, and the Daubert motions, Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/30/2018) (jwh)

Case 1:15-cv-01014-ER Document 168 Filed 09/30/18 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SAUL CHILL and SYLVIA CHILL, for the
use and benefit of the CALAMOS GROWTH
FUND,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
15 Civ. 1014 (ER)

-againstCALAMOS ADVISORS LLC,
Defendant.

Ramos, D.J.:
Before the Court are several motions. Defendant Calamos Advisors LLC moves for
summary judgment against Plaintiffs Saul and Sylvia Chill. Doc. 65. In connection with the
motion, both parties have moved, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993), to exclude certain expert testimony. Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118.
The Court has provided the parties with a copy of its Opinion. The Opinion has not been
posted publicly. The parties have until the end of business Wednesday, October 3, 2018, to
provide the Court with their recommendations, on consent, of the matters that ought to be
redacted in accordance with the Protective Order entered herein, Doc. 32.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, Calamos’ motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED insofar as Calamos seeks to establish that Plaintiffs have failed to raise triable issues
of fact related to economies of scale and fall-out benefits, and DENIED insofar as Calamos seeks
judgment as a matter of law on the other Gartenberg factors and Section 36(b) liability generally.
Moreover, the parties’ Daubert motions are DENIED.

Case 1:15-cv-01014-ER Document 168 Filed 09/30/18 Page 2 of 2

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the summary judgment
motion, Doc. 65, and the Daubert motions, Docs. 88, 106, 109, 112, 115, 118.

Dated: September 30, 2018
New York, New York

2