Park v. Shinhan Bank America
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-10331
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Park v. Shinhan Bank America, Judge Broderick denied Plaintiffs’ request to extend deadlines for opposing arbitration and seeking leave to amend.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiffs’ deadlines to oppose Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to seek leave to amend their complaint. It also affected Defendants by leaving the April 17, 2025 deadlines in place.
What happened
In Park v. Shinhan Bank America, Plaintiffs asked for more time—until at least June 17, 2025—to respond to Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to seek permission to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs had previously received two extensions, and the existing deadline was April 17, 2025.
Defendants opposed another extension. Their counsel argued that Plaintiffs’ planned False Claims Act lawsuit did not affect the pending arbitration motion and that Plaintiffs had delayed pursuing that separate claim. The letter also argued that the False Claims Act lawsuit should be filed separately and under seal.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Plaintiffs’ requests for extensions. The court directed that, if Plaintiffs moved to amend before April 17, 2025, they must state whether an earlier amendment motion had become unnecessary, and directed the Clerk to terminate Document 52.
The detailed version
- Park v. Shinhan Bank America · No. 1:22-cv-10331
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 11, 2025
Background
The opinion text consists primarily of Defendants’ April 10, 2025 letter and Judge Broderick’s April 11, 2025 order. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserted claims described in the letter as whistleblower retaliation under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act, gender discrimination and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law, and related claims against various defendants.
Defendants had filed a motion to compel arbitration on January 17, 2025. Arbitration is a process in which a dispute is decided outside court by an arbitrator. Plaintiffs had already obtained two extensions of the deadline to respond to that motion and to seek permission to file another amended complaint. Their response and amendment deadlines were then set for April 17, 2025. Plaintiffs requested a third extension, until at least June 17, 2025.
The Parties’ Positions
Defendants opposed the requested extension. Their counsel argued that Plaintiffs’ proposed False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit, known as a qui tam action, had no bearing on whether the employment-related claims in the existing case were subject to arbitration. The letter asserted that a False Claims Act qui tam claim could proceed in court while the employment claims proceeded in arbitration, if arbitration were ordered.
Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs had known the facts underlying the proposed False Claims Act claim for several years and should file that claim separately under seal. The letter did not state that the court had decided whether any claim was arbitrable.
Ruling
Judge Broderick denied Plaintiffs’ request for extensions to (1) respond to the pending motion to compel arbitration and (2) move for leave to amend the complaint. The order did not decide the pending motion to compel arbitration or the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.
The court added that, if Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend before April 17, 2025, they must also state whether their pending earlier motion for leave to amend was moot, meaning no longer necessary to decide. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Document 52, which concerned the extension request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.