HAHA Global, Inc. v. Barclays
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-04749
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In HAHA Global v. Barclays, Judge Aaron ordered plaintiffs to address serious claim concerns and authenticate exhibits without deciding the pending motions.
HAHA Global, Inc., the other plaintiffs, and their counsel, who were required to file additional briefing and authenticated exhibits and were warned about possible sanctions; Barclays’ arguments were to be addressed in that filing.
What happened
In HAHA Global, Inc. v. Barclays, the court questioned whether the amended complaint’s factual allegations were plausible and whether documents the plaintiffs submitted were authentic.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a response by May 20, 2020, refile relevant exhibits, and provide a lawyer’s declaration confirming those exhibits’ authenticity. The response also had to state whether the plaintiffs intended to pursue claims beyond breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron warned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 could allow sanctions against the plaintiffs and their lawyers if the factual assertions lacked proper support. The order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- HAHA Global, Inc. v. Barclays · No. 1:19-cv-04749
- Valerie Caproni
- May 8, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Barclays and others. While the motions to dismiss were pending, Barclays argued that the amended complaint’s factual allegations were not plausible and challenged the authenticity of documents attached to the plaintiffs’ opposition papers.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a sur-reply by May 20, 2020, addressing Barclays’ arguments. A sur-reply is an additional written response allowed after the usual briefing. The plaintiffs also had to refile the relevant exhibits in one filing, attached to a declaration from counsel confirming that the exhibits were authentic.
The court reminded plaintiffs’ counsel of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. That rule requires an attorney who presents a filing to have a reasonable basis for its factual assertions. The court warned that violating the rule could result in sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel.
The sur-reply also had to address whether the plaintiffs intended to pursue claims other than breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The court noted that those were the only claims addressed in the plaintiffs’ opposition to the pending motions to dismiss and cited authority stating that a claim not addressed in opposition may be treated as abandoned.
Disposition and significance
This was a procedural order requiring additional briefing and authentication of exhibits. Judge Stewart D. Aaron did not grant or deny the pending motions to dismiss and did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ claims were legally valid. The order instead identified concerns that the plaintiffs had to address and warned of possible Rule 11 sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.