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

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

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