City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater

Background

MeM Energy Partners ("MeM") sought judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the action shortly before a trial that was scheduled to begin on June 10, 2024. At a June 7 emergency conference, MeM expressly disclaimed reliance on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the rule authorizing judgment on the pleadings when the motion is filed early enough not to delay trial. Instead, MeM asked the court to exercise its discretion.

MeM’s arguments concerned two claims against it: unjust enrichment and money had and received. MeM argued that the claims were barred by a shorter statute of limitations under Kazakh law and that a prior decision in a related action prevented the plaintiffs from disputing that position. MeM also argued that plaintiff BTA Bank was required to register to do business in New York under New York Business Corporation Law § 1312.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant MeM’s request. It found the request plainly untimely because the case had been pending for more than four years, the trial date had been set months earlier, extensive trial preparation had occurred, and the application was filed only shortly before trial. The court also noted that MeM’s request was inconsistent with counsel’s earlier representation that the issues could be addressed during trial for purposes of jury instructions.

The court held that its prior rulings on the limitations periods were the law of the case—a principle generally requiring a court to follow its earlier decisions in the same case. The court had previously held that the unjust-enrichment claim was subject to a three-year limitations period, while it had adopted a recommendation holding that the money-had-and-received claim was subject to a six-year period. The court stated that MeM had not shown that Kazakh law provided a different limitations period.

The court also concluded that MeM had waived any new choice-of-law arguments by failing to raise them earlier. MeM had previously litigated limitations issues, including moving for summary judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim, but did not previously raise the arguments presented immediately before trial. The court rejected MeM’s reliance on collateral estoppel, a rule that can prevent relitigation of an issue decided in an earlier case, because the relevant claims had factual differences and MeM had waited too long to raise the argument.

The court further declined to grant judgment on the pleadings because MeM had requested it without a formal motion, extensive briefing, or a sufficient opportunity for the plaintiffs to respond. The court stated that the claims and defenses in the existing joint pretrial order would be the claims and defenses tried.

As to BTA Bank’s alleged registration requirement, the court stated that the argument was waived because the defendants had not raised it earlier. The court also found the argument unsupported because the defendants had not shown that BTA regularly conducted business in New York, as required for the asserted defense.

Disposition

The court denied MeM’s application for judgment on the pleadings. It also stated that the BTA Bank registration issue must be dismissed. The court directed that the case be tried under the claims and defenses set out in the joint pretrial order.