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

28 U.S.C. § 1782 — Foreign Recognition, Enforcement, Attachment & Garnishment Proceedings after Merits Decided Are Not “Adjudicative” & Thus Not “Proceedings” within §1782 — No Discovery Permitted

Download PDF

 In re Galaxy Energy & Res. Co. Pte. Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109718 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019):

Before the Court is the ex parte Petition of Galaxy Energy and Resources Co. Pte. Ltd. ("Galaxy" or "Petitioner") seeking permission to conduct discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The Court has considered Petitioner's application and accompanying documents carefully. For the following reasons, the Petition is denied.

Background

The following facts are drawn from the Petition and are taken as true for the purposes of this decision.

The Petition arises from a contractual dispute between two commodities traders: Galaxy and Mohammad Saidur Rahman ("Saidur"). (Ex Parte Application for Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 ("Petition"), Docket Entry No. 1, at 3.) On January 11, 2019, a Singaporean arbitration tribunal issued an award in favor of Galaxy and against Saidur in the amount of $1,190,809.00, with simple interest of 5.33% per annum pro rata. (Id. at 5.) According to Petitioner, Saidur has failed to pay any portion of the Singaporean arbitration award. (Id.)

Petitioner represents that it has initiated or will initiate [*2]  "[r]ecognition and enforcement" and "[a]ttachment and garnishment" proceedings in Singapore or any other jurisdiction in which Saidur's assets may be located "in an attempt to enforce the Singaporean Arbitration Award." (Id. at 6.) It seeks discovery under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 for use in such proceedings.

Discussion

Petitioner's application must be denied because it does not satisfy the statutory requirements of section 1782. 28 U.S.C. section 1782 permits United States district courts to authorize certain persons to take discovery in aid of foreign proceedings. The statute imposes three separate requirements: (1) that "the person from whom discovery is sought resides" in this district; (2) that "the discovery is for use in a foreign proceeding before a foreign tribunal"; and (3) that the application is made by an "interested person" or a foreign tribunal. Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76, 80 (2d Cir. 2012).

Petitioner satisfies the first and third prongs of section 1782: the banks from whom it seeks discovery are located in New York, and Petitioner is an "interested person" in the contemplated foreign litigation. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 U.S. 241, 256, 124 S. Ct. 2466, 159 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2004) (defining "interested person"). However, Petitioner's proffers do not satisfy the second statutory requirement of section 1782: that the discovery be for use in a foreign proceeding. Not all foreign matters [*3]  are "proceedings" within the meaning of section 1782. Rather, section 1782 discovery is available in aid of "adjudicative" foreign proceedings, and is inappropriate where the merits of a controversy have already been decided by the foreign tribunal. Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 1998). Here, the only types of foreign proceedings that Galaxy identifies as ones for which it seeks discovery are "[r]ecognition and enforcement" and "[a]ttachment and garnishment" proceedings with respect to the arbitration award that has determined the merits of its dispute with Saidur. Such proceedings are not "adjudicative." Cf. id. (finding that French bankruptcy proceeding for which discovery was sought was not adjudicative in that "the already extant judgment [was] merely being enforced.") Accordingly, the Petition is denied.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied. Docket Entry No. 1 is resolved, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close this miscellaneous matter.

SO ORDERED.

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