New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

§ 1782 Application Is Moot If Foreign Evidentiary Record Is Closed, Even If Appeal Is Pending & Reversal Possible — Court’s 1782 Jurisdiction Is Limited to the Foreign Proceeding Listed in the Application

Download PDF

In re Fuhr, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468 (Jan. 11, 2019):

[*1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before this Court on Motion of Credit Suisse AG to Dismiss Petition as Moot filed on October 29, 2018. ECF No. 169. The Honorable William J. Zloch referred for disposition all post-appeal non-dispositive matters or a report and recommendation concerning disposition of all post-appeal dispositive motions. ECF No. 139; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. L.R. Mag. R. 1. On January 8, 2019, the undersigned conducted a hearing on this Motion. Having carefully reviewed the Motion, the Response, and the Reply thereto, oral argument of counsel, the entire case file, and applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby recommended that Credit Suisse AG's Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot be GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On May 3, 2013, Applicant Fuhr ("hereinafter Fuhr") filed a §1782 application in this Court for the express purpose of obtaining bank account documents from Credit Suisse to aid in his defense of a defamation and injunctive relief action brought against him by Luis Marimon Garnier in Frankfurt, Germany. On May 7, 2014, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt enjoined Fuhr from stating that Marimon held the bank account [*2]  at issue beneficially for the deceased Dr. Wolfgang Ambrosius Bauml or that Marimon transferred money from such an account. The decision was upheld by the German High Court of Appeal on December 10, 2014, and Fuhr appealed to the German Supreme Court. The German Supreme Court remanded the action to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt Am Main to allow additional, testimonial evidence to be taken. On September 26, 2018, the Higher Regional Court issued a judgment dismissing Fuhr's appeal and affirming the original District Court decision in favor of Marimon. The Higher Regional Court denied Fuhr leave to appeal further. The dismissal of the appeal ends the proceedings at the Higher Regional Court and closes the evidentiary record. Bussian Declaration, ECF 169-1, ¶5 ("In the Judgment, the Frankfurt court both ruled against Mr. Fuhr and denied leave to appeal. Under German rules of procedure, the evidentiary record is now closed."). Fuhr filed a Motion for Leave to File an Appeal to the German Supreme Court on October 25, 2018. The German Supreme Court only grants such complaints in approximately five percent of cases.1 Bussian Declaration, ECF 169-1, ¶8. If Fuhr succeeds, he would then [*3]  be entitled to appeal violations of law, not errors of fact.  Id., ¶9. The German Supreme Court will not reopen the factual record or take new evidence. Id. Both parties agree that it is likely that resolution of the German appeal will take years.

1.    The Federal Court of Justice referred to in Mr. Wolf Bussian's affidavit, ECF No.169-1, is the same as the German Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as "the German Supreme Court").

Credit Suisse argues that Fuhr's application must be dismissed because it is moot, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to order production for use in the German proceeding.  Fuhr contends that this Court still has jurisdiction by virtue of the motion for leave to appeal he has filed.

ANALYSIS

"[A] case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief." Soliman v. United States ex. rel. INS, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002). Mootness is jurisdictional, and "[a]ny decision on the merits of a moot case or issue would be an impermissible advisory opinion." Id. In the §1782 context, where the proceeding in which the discovery is to be used has concluded such that the §1782 discovery can no longer be used in the proceeding, the §1782 application becomes moot. Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa v. Nejapa Power Co.LLC, 341 F. App'x 821 (3d Cir. 2009). United States courts have [*4]  dismissed §1782 applications as moot even when the foreign proceeding's judgment has not yet issued.  In Comision Ejecutiva, the Third Circuit directed the District Court to dismiss the §1782 application as moot when the foreign arbitration's evidentiary record was closed even though the tribunal had not yet rendered its final judgment. Id. at 827-828. In In reIshihara Chemical Co., 251 F.3d 120, 122 (2d Cir. 2001), abrogated in part on other grounds by Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), the court dismissed an appeal of a §1782 petition as moot when the Japanese Patent Office (JPO) completed its merits hearing during the U.S. appeal's pendency. The Ishihara court further noted that the petitioner would have to wait for the JPO to ask for additional evidence before Ishihara could submit such evidence. Id. at 124.

In the instant case, evidence gathering is closed in the foreign proceeding, and the Frankfurt court has entered its judgment and denied leave to appeal. Fuhr argues that this Court still has jurisdiction since he filed a Motion for Leave to File an Appeal to the German Supreme Court. But even if Fuhr succeeds, he would then only be entitled to appeal violations of law, not errors of fact. The German Supreme Court will not reopen the factual record or take new evidence. Fuhr raises additional arguments [*5]  regarding the need for the evidence for use in separate, future litigation and asset recovery, but the undersigned finds that the instant application was for a particular purpose and was not open-ended. Section 1782 limits this Court's jurisdiction to the foreign proceeding that is listed in the original application. See Certain Funds Managed by Fortress v. KPMG, 798 F.3d 113, 124 (2d Cir. 2017). Certainly, if Fuhr has new grounds to support a §1782 application with regard to new and different foreign proceedings, he must file a new application. Comision, 341 F. App'x at 827-828.

This Court finds that because the German evidentiary record is closed, the request to dismiss the petition at this time without prejudice is proper since this Court is divested of jurisdiction based on the case law cited above. This recommendation is made without prejudice in the event Fuhr is ultimately successful in the German courts.

RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned recommends that Credit Suisse AG'S Motion to Dismiss Petition as Moot filed on October 29, 2018, ECF No. 169, be GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations as provided by [*6]  the Local Rules for this district. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice