From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MLRN LLC v. U.S. Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 5, 2021
190 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

12765 Index No. 652712/18 Case No. 2020-00886

01-05-2021

MLRN LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant. The American Bankers Association, Amicus Curiae.

Jones Day, New York (David F. Adler and Louis A. Chaiten of the bar of the State of Ohio, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, New York (John R. Hein and Timothy A. DeLange of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, New York (Clay J. Pierce of counsel), Amicus Curiae.


Jones Day, New York (David F. Adler and Louis A. Chaiten of the bar of the State of Ohio, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.

Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, New York (John R. Hein and Timothy A. DeLange of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, New York (Clay J. Pierce of counsel), Amicus Curiae.

Renwick, J.P., Gische, Kern, Oing, Mendez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered November 13, 2019, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5), and (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant – who was also the defendant in Blackrock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) v. U.S. Bank N.A., 165 A.D.3d 526, 86 N.Y.S.3d 484 (1st Dept. 2018) – may not relitigate the issue that it raised therein and that was decided against it (see e.g. Buechel v. Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 303, 740 N.Y.S.2d 252, 766 N.E.2d 914 [2001], cert denied 535 U.S. 1096, 122 S.Ct. 2293, 152 L.Ed.2d 1051 [2002] ), namely, "Once performance of the demand requirement in the no-action clause is excused, performance of the entire provision is excused, including the requirement that demand be made by 25% of the certificate holders" ( Blackrock, 165 A.D.3d at 528, 86 N.Y.S.3d 484 ).


Summaries of

MLRN LLC v. U.S. Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jan 5, 2021
190 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

MLRN LLC v. U.S. Bank

Case Details

Full title:MLRN LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. U.S. Bank National Association…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 5, 2021

Citations

190 A.D.3d 426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 25
135 N.Y.S.3d 634

Citing Cases

Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. U.S. Bank

ate holders have fully complied with the requirements of a no-action clause, but whether strict compliance…

IKB International, S.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

The court's reasoning and the cases it relied on relate to the timing of the breaches of defendants’ document…