Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Negrete v. Citibank, N.A.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 11, 2017

EDUARDO NEGRETE AND GERVASIO NEGRETE, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant.

          Attorneys for Plaintiffs LIDDLE & ROBINSON, LLP Blaine H. Bortnick, Esq., James W. Halter, Esq., Read K. McCaffrey, Esq., Atoosa Esmaili, Esq.

          Attorneys for Defendant GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP Marshall H. Fishman, Esq. Samuel J. Rubin, Esq.

          OPINION

          ROBERT W. SWEET, U.S. D.J.

         Plaintiffs Eduardo Negrete and Gervasio Negrete (collectively, the "Negretes" or the "Plaintiffs") have moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) to certify the Court's February 27, 2017, dismissal of Counts I, II, IV, V, and part of Count III as a partial final judgment. As set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

         Prior Proceedings

         The factual background and prior proceedings of this matter have been set forth in previous opinions by this Court. See Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., 187 F.Supp.3d 454, 459-61 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Negrete v. Citibank, N.A., No. 15 Civ. 7250 (RWS), 2017 WL 758516, at *1-5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2017). Familiarity is assumed. The following summary retells portions of prior proceedings as relevant to the instant motion.

         On September 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank" or the "Defendant"), (Dkt. 1), which was dismissed in its entirety on May 19, 2016, with leave to replead, (Dkt. 49). On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 51.)

         On February 27, 2017, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint was dismissed in its entirety except for part of Count III, Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim over "any claims [concerning] unexecuted or partially executed [trades] for which Plaintiffs can prove they covered at a worse price and suffered actual damages." (Dkt. 75 at 32-33.)

         On March 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, (Dkt. 77), which was heard and marked fully submitted on April 19, 2017.

         Applicable Standard

          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief-whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim-or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b) may therefore be exercised where there are (1) multiple claims or multiple parties be present, (2) at least one claim, or the rights and liabilities of at least one party, finally decided within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and (3) the district court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. See Ginett v. Computer Task Grp., Inc., 962 F.2d 1085, 1091 (2d Cir. 1992).

         Rule 54 is a permissive, not mandatory, mechanism to be "exercised in the interest of sound judicial administration." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (citations omitted). It is therefore "left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the 'appropriate time' when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal." Id. (citations omitted). "[T]he power to certify a judgment as final should be 'exercised sparingly, ' and, 'only if there are interests of sound judicial administration and efficiency to be served, or in the infrequent harsh case where there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.'" HSW Enters., Inc. v. Woo Lae Oak, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 8476 (LBS), 2010 WL 1630686, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010) (quoting Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627, 629 (2d Cir. 1991)). A court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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