Choi v. Tower Research Capital LLC

Background

Plaintiffs were members of a proposed class of people who traded certain Korea Exchange futures contracts in 2012. They alleged that Tower Research Capital LLC and Mark Gorton used fictitious trades and other deceptive methods to manipulate prices during overnight trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s Globex platform. They asserted claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and New York common law for unjust enrichment.

Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, summary judgment on the Commodity Exchange Act claims. A magistrate judge recommended granting partial summary judgment, and the court adopted that recommendation on March 30, 2020, granting summary judgment to defendants on those claims.

Rule 54(b) motion

Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 54(b) permits a court to enter final judgment on fewer than all claims when there are multiple claims or parties, at least one claim has been finally resolved, and there is no just reason to delay judgment.

The court found that the case involved multiple claims and that the Commodity Exchange Act claim had been finally resolved on the merits. It also found no just reason for delay because the federal claim and the unjust-enrichment claim were separable. The question whether the futures contracts were subject to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s rules was specific to the Commodity Exchange Act claim, while the unjust-enrichment claim presented an independent state-law issue.

The court further found that entering final judgment served equitable interests. The summary-judgment ruling extinguished the claims of one named plaintiff and of proposed class members who had not transacted directly in the relevant futures contracts with Tower. Requiring those plaintiffs to wait for resolution of the unjust-enrichment claim before seeking an appeal would impose an unnecessary hardship.

Ruling

Judge Kimba M. Wood granted plaintiffs’ unopposed Rule 54(b) motion and directed the clerk to enter final judgment on the Commodity Exchange Act claim. The order did not resolve the separate unjust-enrichment claim.