United States District Court, S.D. New York
February 28, 2015
DEUTSCHE ZENTRALGENOSSENSCHAFTSBANK AG, NEW YORK BRANCH, d/b/a DZ BANK AG, NEW YORK BRANCH; DEUTSCHE GENOSSENSCHAFTS-HYPOTHEKENBANK AG; and DG HOLDING TRUST, Plaintiffs,
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORPORATION; COUNTRYWIDE CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER SMITH, INC. (f/k/a BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC); MERRILL LYNCH MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC.; CREDIT-BASED ASSET SERVICING AND SECURITIZATION LLC; and ASSET BACKED FUNDING CORPORATION, Defendants.
Joel H. Bernstein, Esq., Mark S. Arisohn, Esq., Michael Lee Woolley, Esq., LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Achyut J. Phadke, Esq., MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, San Francisco, CA, James Christopher Rutten, Esq., Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq., MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel Prugh Roeser, Esq., GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP, New York, NY, Susan F. DiCicco, Esq., Matthew Minerva, Esq., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants.
ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
Defendants, through a letter application pursuant to Rule for the Division of Business Among District Judges of the Southern District of New York ("ROB") 13, request that this action be reassigned to the Honorable Lewis Kaplan as related to IKB International S.A. in Liquidation v. Bank of America Corp., 12 Civ. 4036 ("IKB Case").
Under ROB 13(a) (2), "[c]ivil cases shall not be deemed related merely because they involve common legal issues or the same parties" and "civil cases presumptively shall not be deemed related unless both cases are pending before the Court (or the earlier case is on appeal)." The IKB Case was decided by Judge Kaplan and affirmed by the Second Circuit. See Fed.App'x 26 (2d Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs' deadline to file a writ of certiorari has expired. Consequently, both cases are no longer pending before the Court.
Having considered Defendants' arguments, the Court finds that the cases are not related. Defendants' application is denied and the current case will not be reassigned.
It is so ordered.