UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank

S.D. New York

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank

DecidedJuly 8, 2024

Docket1:18-cv-11117

StatusUnknown

This text of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. BRUTUS TRADING, LLC, 18 Civ. 11117 (PAE) Plaintiff, “y- ORDER STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, STANDARD CHARTERED PLC, and STANDARD CHARTERED TRADE SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Brutus Trading LLC (“Brutus Trading”), the relator in this qui fam action, in connection with its motion to vacate, seeks a pre-motion conference regarding its motion to disqualify Assistant United States Attorney Jean-David Barnea and its potential motion to appoint an expert. See Dkt. 112, 119. The Court rejects the request for a pre-motion conference. The motion for a pre-motion conference, and the proposed motion itself, appears to be transparent bids to delay this litigation by unnecessarily hampering the Government’s response to the pending motion to vacate.! Although the Court doubts that Brutus Trading can meet the high “standard of proof” required for motions to disqualify, which are “disfavored” and recognized as “often interposed for tactical reasons” and as “inevitably caus[ing] delay” even when made in good faith, Pagan v. C.L Lobster Corp., 549 F. Supp. 3d 356, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), the Court will permit such a

' The Court notes that it has already denied Brutus Trading’s earlier request to reopen the case. See Dkt. 97 (Opinion); Dkt. 99 (Second Circuit affirmance).

motion to be made, and adopts the joint briefing schedule proposed. The Government’s response to the disqualification motion is due July 15. Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, is due July 22. The Government’s response to the motion to appoint an independent expert will be due 14 days after the Court decides the disqualification motion. Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, will be due 7 days after that. The Government’s response to the motion to vacate will be due 14 days after the Court decides the motion to appoint an independent expert. Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, will be due 7 days after that. SO ORDERED. a . Rasch A ff ION & he PAUL A. ENGELMA ¥8R United States District Judge Dated: July 8, 2024 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. BRUTUS TRADING, LLC, 18 Civ. 11117 (PAE) Plaintiff, “y- ORDER STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, STANDARD CHARTERED PLC, and STANDARD CHARTERED TRADE SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Brutus Trading LLC (“Brutus Trading”), the relator in this qui fam action, in connection with its motion to vacate, seeks a pre-motion conference regarding its motion to disqualify Assistant United States Attorney Jean-David Barnea and its potential motion to appoint an expert. See Dkt. 112, 119. The Court rejects the request for a pre-motion conference. The motion for a pre-motion conference, and the proposed motion itself, appears to be transparent bids to delay this litigation by unnecessarily hampering the Government’s response to the pending motion to vacate.! Although the Court doubts that Brutus Trading can meet the high “standard of proof” required for motions to disqualify, which are “disfavored” and recognized as “often interposed for tactical reasons” and as “inevitably caus[ing] delay” even when made in good faith, Pagan v. C.L Lobster Corp., 549 F. Supp. 3d 356, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), the Court will permit such a

' The Court notes that it has already denied Brutus Trading’s earlier request to reopen the case. See Dkt. 97 (Opinion); Dkt. 99 (Second Circuit affirmance).

motion to be made, and adopts the joint briefing schedule proposed. The Government’s response to the disqualification motion is due July 15. Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, is due July 22. The Government’s response to the motion to appoint an independent expert will be due 14 days after the Court decides the disqualification motion. Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, will be due 7 days after that. The Government’s response to the motion to vacate will be due 14 days after the Court decides the motion to appoint an independent expert. Brutus Trading’s reply, if any, will be due 7 days after that. SO ORDERED. a . Rasch A ff ION & he PAUL A. ENGELMA ¥8R United States District Judge Dated: July 8, 2024 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Brutus Trading, LLC v. Standard Chartered Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-of-america-ex-rel-brutus-trading-llc-v-standard-chartered-nysd-2024.