Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RABBI JACOB JOSEPH SCHOOL v. PROVINCE OF MENDOZA

United States District Court, S.D. New York


June 3, 2005.

RABBI JACOB JOSEPH SCHOOL, individually and on behalf of all other holders of PROVINCE OF MENDOZA, 10 percent Bonds due 2007, similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
PROVINCE OF MENDOZA, ET AL., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEVIN FOX, Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE HAROLD BAER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is plaintiff Rabbi Jacob Joseph School's ("School") application for an order, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), directing the entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims brought in this action, so that an appeal might be taken immediately. The School commenced this class action against defendants Province of Mendoza ("Province"), the Bank of New York and JP Morgan Chase Bank (collectively, "defendants"), alleging, inter alia, that: (1) the Province has not made certain interest payments due on bonds held by the School and other plaintiff class members; and (2) the Province, with the assistance of the other defendants, has attempted to change the bonds' original indenture, thereby violating the terms of that agreement and/or breaching various common law duties owed by the defendants to the bond holders. In an order dated March 25, 2005 ("March 25th Order"), your Honor dismissed without prejudice the plaintiff's claim to recover unpaid interest ("Interest Claim"), dismissed with prejudice all other claims made in the action and directed the Clerk of Court to "close the file."

  The defendants oppose the instant application, on the grounds that: (a) the instant application is without the court's jurisdiction, as a notice of appeal has been filed by the School with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; and (b) even if the application were within the court's jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to grant it, as the claims that have been dismissed with prejudice are "clearly connected" to the Interest Claim.

  With exceptions not here pertinent, "the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal [taken from a decision of a district court] unless the decision is, or is embodied in, an order or judgment that is `final' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (`The courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States. . . .')." Citizens Accord, Inc. v. Town of Rochester, 235 F.3d 126, 128 (2d Cir. 2000). "[A] dismissal without prejudice that does not give leave to amend and closes the case is a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291." Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 76 (2d Cir. 2004). However, where the remaining claims in an action are dismissed voluntarily or upon the consent of the plaintiff, an appeal is not permitted. See Chappelle v. Beacon Communications Corp., 84 F.3d 652, 654 (2d Cir. 1996).

  In this action, the Interest Claim was not dismissed voluntarily. Nothing in the record before the Court suggests that the Interest Claim was dismissed upon the consent of the School, or that the School was granted leave to amend its complaint to replead the Interest Claim. Moreover, the March 25th Order directs expressly that this case be closed. Accordingly, the March 25th Order is a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Wynder, 360 F.3d at 76. Therefore, the instant application is moot and should be denied. RECOMMENDATION

  For the reasons set forth above, the School's application for an entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims brought in this action should be denied, as it is moot.

  FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Such objections, and any responses to objections, shall be filed with the Clerk of Court, with courtesy copies delivered to the chambers of the Honorable Harold Baer, Jr., 500 Pearl Street, Room 2230, New York, New York, 10007. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Baer, and to the chambers of the undersigned, 40 Centre Street, Room 540, New York, New York, 10007. FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 57-59 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-38 (2d Cir. 1983).

20050603

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.