Allianz Global Investors GmbH v. Bank Of America Corporation

Background

Nearly 1,300 investment firms and government entities brought claims against 16 banks and their affiliates, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the foreign-exchange market. The claims arise under the Sherman Act and unjust-enrichment law. The plaintiffs had opted out of a related class action.

The plaintiffs sought permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted that request in part on July 20, 2020, allowing amendments concerning MUFG Bank, Ltd. and the Royal Bank of Canada, while declining at that time to rule on a proposed change to a footnote. Judge Aaron later denied MUFG Bank’s and RBC’s request to stay, or pause, discovery while they challenged the amendment ruling and considered filing motions to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction. MUFG Bank and RBC objected to both orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which permits review of a magistrate judge’s nondispositive ruling for clear error or a legal mistake.

July 20 Amendment Order

The court overruled the objections to the order allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint concerning MUFG Bank and RBC. It held that the magistrate judge was not clearly wrong in finding that the plaintiffs plausibly believed their earlier complaint adequately pleaded personal jurisdiction. The court explained that an earlier decision in a related proceeding provided general pleading guidance but did not specifically identify deficiencies in the allegations against MUFG Bank and RBC.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient reason to amend. Prejudice is a proper factor in deciding whether to allow an amendment, but the defendants did not show that the discovery schedule itself created legally relevant prejudice. The court stated that disputes about the timing of discovery could be addressed by Judge Aaron, who was supervising pretrial proceedings.

July 29 Discovery Order

The court separately overruled the objections to Judge Aaron’s denial of a stay of discovery. It concluded that the decision was not clearly erroneous because it considered the strength of the anticipated personal-jurisdiction motions and possible prejudice from delaying discovery. The court emphasized that decisions about staying discovery are generally left to the court’s discretion and depend on the circumstances of the case.

Footnote Amendment

The court granted the plaintiffs’ letter motion to amend a footnote on the first page of the Third Amended Complaint. The earlier footnote had stated too broadly that the plaintiffs did not seek to relitigate the holding that certain transactions were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. The proposed language added that the foreign plaintiff must have been operating abroad.

The court found that the change was reasonable and did not involve undue delay, bad faith, a delaying motive, or futility. It rejected the defendants’ argument that the earlier footnote waived claims involving foreign desks. The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs intentionally gave up those claims and stated that the footnote inaccurately described the court’s earlier rulings. It also rejected the defendants’ arguments concerning the pleading of statutory exceptions and the plaintiffs’ operations in the United States, explaining that transaction details could be obtained through discovery and addressed later if appropriate.

Disposition

The objections to the July 20 order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend and the July 29 order denying the motion to stay discovery were OVERRULED. The plaintiffs’ letter motion to amend the footnote was GRANTED. The defendants’ letter motion seeking a briefing schedule on that issue was DENIED as moot. The opinion did not resolve the underlying antitrust or unjust-enrichment claims.