Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-03569
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola, Judge Cronan granted the GE defendants’ request for a conference about pausing discovery.
The plaintiffs, the GE defendants, and the other parties were affected because all parties were directed to prepare to discuss the GE defendants’ request to pause discovery.
What happened
In Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola, the GE defendants asked the court to pause discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. The dispute concerns contracts for power plants in Angola and alleged conduct by General Electric-related companies.
The GE defendants argued that discovery was premature because the case might be sent to arbitration, dismissed, or resolved through proceedings in Angola. They also opposed the plaintiffs’ request for discovery about whether the court had authority over two GE defendants.
Judge Cronan granted the GE defendants’ request for a conference. The court directed all parties to be ready to discuss the proposed discovery pause at the initial pretrial conference scheduled for October 30, 2020; it did not order a discovery stay in this text.
The detailed version
- Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola · No. 1:20-cv-03569
- John Cronan
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
The opinion text consists primarily of a letter from General Electric Company, General Electric International, Inc., and GE Capital EFS Financing, Inc. (the “GE Defendants”). The letter describes a dispute involving Aenergy S.A. and the Angolan government over contracts to build and operate power plants in Angola. According to the letter, Angola terminated those contracts in 2019, and the plaintiffs alleged that companies associated with General Electric caused the termination through misrepresentations in Angola. The letter also states that related proceedings were pending in arbitration in London and in Angola, and that Aenergy had previously obtained documents through a discovery proceeding in this court.
The Request
The GE Defendants had moved to dismiss or stay the action on several grounds, including forum non conveniens, arbitration, failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction over two GE defendants, and issues that could be resolved in the ongoing Angolan proceedings. The plaintiffs then sought broad document discovery and depositions, including discovery concerning the court’s personal jurisdiction. The GE Defendants asked the court to stay all discovery while their motion to dismiss was pending. They argued that the discovery was premature, that the motion raised substantial issues, and that the plaintiffs had already obtained extensive documents in the earlier discovery proceeding. The letter also argued that the plaintiffs had not made the required initial showing for jurisdictional discovery.
Court’s Action
The court granted the GE Defendants’ request for a conference. It directed all parties to be prepared to discuss the request for a discovery stay at the initial pretrial conference set for October 30, 2020, at 3:45 p.m. The text provided does not state that the court granted the discovery stay, decide the motion to dismiss, or rule on the request for jurisdictional discovery. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order dated October 29, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.