Deutsche Zentralgenossenschaftsbank AG v. Bank of America Corporation, 13 Civ. 393. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20150304e69
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2015
Summary: OPINION ROBERT W. SWEET , District Judge . Defendants, through a letter application pursuant to Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges of the Southern District of New York ("ROB") 13, request that this action be reassigned to the Honorable Lewis Kaplan as related to IKB International S.A. in Liquidation v. Bank of America Corp., 12 Civ. 4036 ("IKB Case"). Under ROB 13(a) (2), "[c]ivil cases shall not be deemed related merely because they involve common legal issues or th
Summary: OPINION ROBERT W. SWEET , District Judge . Defendants, through a letter application pursuant to Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges of the Southern District of New York ("ROB") 13, request that this action be reassigned to the Honorable Lewis Kaplan as related to IKB International S.A. in Liquidation v. Bank of America Corp., 12 Civ. 4036 ("IKB Case"). Under ROB 13(a) (2), "[c]ivil cases shall not be deemed related merely because they involve common legal issues or the..
More
OPINION
ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants, through a letter application pursuant to Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges of the Southern District of New York ("ROB") 13, request that this action be reassigned to the Honorable Lewis Kaplan as related to IKB International S.A. in Liquidation v. Bank of America Corp., 12 Civ. 4036 ("IKB Case").
Under ROB 13(a) (2), "[c]ivil cases shall not be deemed related merely because they involve common legal issues or the same parties" and "civil cases presumptively shall not be deemed related unless both cases are pending before the Court (or the earlier case is on appeal)." The IKB Case was decided by Judge Kaplan and affirmed by the Second Circuit. See Fed. App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs' deadline to file a writ of certiorari has expired. Consequently, both cases are no longer pending before the Court.
Having considered Defendants' arguments, the Court finds that the cases are not related. Defendants' application is denied and the current case will not be reassigned.
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
