Opinion
16-CV-3711 (VEC)
03-11-2022
IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
ORDER
VALERIE CAPRONI NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
WHEREAS on October 4, 2019, and on March 25, 2020, the then-presiding Judge in this matter, Judge Edgardo Ramos, granted motions to dismiss filed by certain Defendants, Dkt. 627, Dkt. 638;
WHEREAS on July 19, 2021, the Second Circuit, following a de novo review, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the moving Defendants, see 20-1759, Dkt. 285;
WHEREAS on September 9, 2021, the Second Circuit's mandate was filed in the docket in this case, Dkt. 692;
WHEREAS on January 20, 2022, the Clerk of Court informed the parties that Judge Ramos owned stock that “would have required recusal under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, ” Dkt. 693;
WHEREAS the Clerk of Court informed the parties that if they wished to respond to the disclosure, they should do so by filing a letter on the docket in this case, id.;
WHEREAS on March 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a letter indicating that they would like the case to be reassigned and the “new judge [to] void the judgments against the non-settling Defendants (Dkt. No. 643) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 455, ” Dkt. 694;
WHEREAS on March 7, 2022, the pertinent Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' letter, Dkt. 695; and
WHEREAS on March 11, 2022, this matter was reassigned to the Undersigned.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs may move for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by no later than Friday, April 15, 2022. Defendants' response in opposition is due no later than Friday, April 29, 2022, and Plaintiffs' reply in support is due no later than Friday, May 6, 2022. Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of their motion may not exceed fifteen pages, Defendants' opposition brief may not exceed fifteen pages, and Plaintiffs' reply brief may not exceed eight pages. The Court encourages the parties to review and discuss thoroughly whether the Second Circuit's de novo review of the pertinent decisions renders Plaintiffs' motion futile.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to spread this Order to all related and member cases.
SO ORDERED.