In an opinion issued yesterday, Judge Scheindlin denied the motion to dismiss claims under the Alien Tort Statue against Ford, GM and IBM, finding that two recent Supreme Court rulings had undermined the Second Circuit’s prior decision that corporations could not be liable under the statute. The case, In re South Afican Apartheid Litigation, accuses the defendants of aiding and abetting violations of the ATS by providing military and computer equipment to the apartheid regime. In 2009, the defendants had sought a writ of mandamus of Judge Scheindlin’s decision allowing the ATS claims to go forward. Before ruling, the Second Circuit decided the Kiobel case, in which it held that the ATS did not cover corporate defendants (Kiobel I). That case went to the Supreme Court, which ultimately decided the case on different grounds — whether the ATS could apply extraterritorially — declining to hold that the ATS did not apply to corporations (Kiobel II).
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Rules that Alien Tort Claims May Proceed Against Corporate Defendants
Judge Scheindlin
Concussion Class Action Filed Against NHL
In a complaint filed Wednesday, a group of former NHL hockey players filed a class action alleging that the NHL failed to warn, and concealed, the risk of concussions and other injuries:
Ice hockey is the most difficult team sport in the world. The puck changes possession on average 450 times per game. Players move
…
Judge Scheindlin Dismisses Class Action Alleging Argentinian Firm Failed to Warn of Nationalization Risk
In an opinion issued today, Judge Scheindlin dismissed a putative class action against an Argentinian energy company, its underwriters and executives, alleging violations of the Securities Act and Exchange Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the company, YPF Sociedad Anonima, majority owned by co-defendant Repsol YPF, S.A., had failed to warn investors of the risk that it would be taken over by the Argentine government. When YPF was in fact nationalized, its share price collapsed and the plaintiffs brought suit. Judge Scheindlin dismissed the Securities Act claims as untimely under their 1-year statute of limitations. In doing so, she determined that the plaintiffs were on notice of the risk of nationalization at least a month-and-a-half before YPF was actually taken over:
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Dismisses Class Action Alleging Argentinian Firm Failed to Warn of Nationalization Risk
Judge Scheindlin, Creating Split, Rules That Locally Served 30(b)(6) Subpoena Can Require Information Available Only From Foreign Office
In an opinion today, Judge Scheindlin ruled that Bank Hapoalim, a non-party Israeli bank, was required to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify about information originating in Israel:
Even if Hapoalim is a non-party witness and all of the documents or knowledgeable persons are in Jerusalem, compliance with the 30(b)(6) subpoena is not
…
Judge Scheindlin Opposes Proposed Proportionality Limit on Scope of Discovery
In a comment letter last month to proposed changes to the Federal Rules, Judge Scheindlin (among other points) disagreed with a proposed rule change that would require any discovery sought to be “proportional to the needs of the case considering the amount in controversy, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the parties’s resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit”:
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Opposes Proposed Proportionality Limit on Scope of Discovery
Judge Scheindlin Rules MBS Repurchase Suit is Time-Barred; Splits With Judge Hellerstein
In an opinion Friday, Judge Scheindlin dismissed as time-barred a case alleging that certain mortgage-backed securities were not as represented. The plaintiff claimed that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the defendant refused to repurchase or cure the defects, but Judge Scheindlin, relying largely on the First Department’s recent decision in ACE Sec. Corp. v. DB Structured Products (see here, starting at pg. 26), disagreed:
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Rules MBS Repurchase Suit is Time-Barred; Splits With Judge Hellerstein
Second Circuit Denies Judge Scheindlin Intervention in Stop-and-Frisk Case and Explains Grounds for Her Removal
The Second Circuit issued two orders today concerning the removal of Judge Scheindlin from the stop-and-frisk litigation. In the first Order, the Second Circuit ruled that she lacked standing to intervene to seek to vacate the ruling removing her:
We know of no precedent suggesting that a district judge has standing before an appellate court to protest reassignment of a case. While a district judge may believe that he or she has expended a great deal of effort and energy on a case, only to see it reassigned, reassignment is not a legal injury to the district judge.
NYC Moves to Vacate Stop-and-Frisk Rulings; Argues That Judge Scheindlin Improperly Deemed New Case “Related” to Closed One
The Second Circuit panel that removed Judge Scheindlin from the stop-and-frisk case cited her “improper application of the Court’s ‘related case rule,’” without further explanation. In a motion filed late this evening asking the Second Circuit to vacate Judge Scheindlin’s orders, New York City argued that Judge Scheindlin violated the related case rule, which the…
Judge Scheindlin Moves to Be Restored to Stop-and-Frisk Case
In a motion today, Judge Scheindlin, represented by NYU Law professor Bert Neuborne, asked the Second Circuit for leave to file a motion to be restored to the stop-and-frisk case. The motion argues that Judge Scheindlin was “blind-sided” by the Second Circuit’s decision to remove her and that she should have had an opportunity to respond:
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin Moves to Be Restored to Stop-and-Frisk Case
Judge Scheindlin Issues Statement Responding to Removal from Stop-and-Frisk Case
Judge Scheindlin issued a statement responding to the Second Circuit’s Order yesterday removing her from the stop-and-frisk cases. The statement in full reads:
Press Release I write to respond to the two issues cited by the appellate panel as the basis for removing me from the Floyd and Ligon cases. 1. On the related case
…