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.

Linde v. Arab Bank

United States District Court Eastern District of New York


February 13, 2006

LINDE, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK, PLC,
LITLE, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK, PLC,
COULTER, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK, PLC,
ALMOG, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK PLC,
AFRIAT-KURTZER, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK PLC ET AL.,
BENNETT, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK PLC,
ROTH, ET AL.
v.
ARAB BANK, PLC,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nina Gershon United States District Judge

ORDER

The court has reviewed the letters of counsel dated January 27, January 31, February 2, and February 3 of 2006, regarding Arab Bank's request to consolidate, as related cases, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Linde, Litle, Coulter, Almog, AfriatKurtzer, Bennett and Roth actions currently pending before me, with Weiss, et al. v. National Westminster Bank PLC, 05-CV-4622 (CPS)(KAM), currently pending before Judge Charles P. Sifton. Arab Bank's request is denied, as Rule 42(a) contemplates the consolidation of related actions currently pending before a single judge, not the consolidation of separate actions currently pending before two separate judges.

Treating Arab Bank's request as brought under Rule 50.3 (f) of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges, it is also denied. That rule provides that, in the event that related cases are erroneously characterized as being unrelated, it "shall be corrected only by agreement of all the judges to whom the related cases are assigned; if they agree, they may transfer the later-filed cases. . . ."

Judge Sifton and I have consulted and agreed that the action captioned Weiss et al. v. National Westminster Bank PLC, 05-CV-4622 (CPS)(KAM) will not be transferred to my docket.

In sum, Arab Bank's motion to consolidate, under either Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 50.3 of the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges, is denied. No further briefing on these subjects shall be filed.

SO ORDERED.

20060213

© 1992-2006 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.