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

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 —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

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