City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov
- John Koeltl
- 1:15-cv-05345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of Almaty v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, Judge Nathan ordered jury-trial briefing, administratively denied expert motions without prejudice, granted sealing pending review, and denied oral-argument requests as moot.
The remaining parties, the parties who filed the expert-testimony motions, Triadou, and the parties who requested oral argument.
What happened
City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov concerns whether claims in the remaining action should be tried to a jury. The parties had demanded jury trials, but the court had not yet decided whether any claims qualified for one.
The court explained that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) generally requires a court trial without a jury and that this rule applies to the entire action. The jury-trial question could affect how the court handles the parties’ pending requests to exclude expert testimony.
Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered the parties to submit a joint letter within 30 days addressing which claims, if any, should be tried to a jury. She administratively denied the pending expert-testimony motions without prejudice, granted Triadou’s motion to seal portions of its submissions pending review, and denied the requests for oral argument as moot.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov · No. 1:15-cv-05345
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
The court had not decided whether any claims should be tried to a jury. The remaining parties had each demanded a jury trial. The court noted that removal jurisdiction in the action was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), which provides that, after removal, the action is tried by the court without a jury. The court had previously held that the provision applies to the entire action, not only to claims against a foreign state that created removal jurisdiction.
The jury-trial issue could affect the court’s handling of pending motions to preclude, or exclude, expert testimony. The court explained that, in a trial before a judge rather than a jury, courts may defer deciding whether expert testimony is admissible and instead hear the testimony at trial.
Orders
The court ordered the parties to confer and submit a joint letter within 30 days explaining which claims, if any, should be tried to a jury and the basis for their views. If the parties could not agree, each side could include up to five pages of argument in the joint letter.
The court administratively denied without prejudice the pending motions to preclude expert testimony, identified as Docket Numbers 1274, 1277, 1299, 1305, and 1308. It granted Triadou’s letter motion to seal portions of its submissions on those motions pending the court’s consideration of the submissions. It denied as moot the parties’ letter motions for oral argument, Docket Numbers 1311 and 1387. The order resolved Docket Numbers 1274, 1277, 1299, 1305, 1308, 1311, 1341, and 1387.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.