Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA

Background

The defendants moved under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the court’s February 16, 2021 Opinion and Order, which had granted in part and denied in part their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under Swiss law. The reconsideration motion argued that the court had failed to address whether the Second Amended Complaint contained individualized, non-conclusory allegations concerning Defendant BNPP N.A.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A party seeking reconsideration must also show that addressing the allegedly overlooked matter would have changed the court’s earlier decision.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that its earlier opinion had not expressly addressed the defendants’ argument about BNPP N.A. It nevertheless concluded that addressing the argument would not change the result because the plaintiffs’ allegations against BNPP N.A. were sufficient at the pleading stage.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must give each defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claims and the factual basis for them. Although collectively referring to defendants can be inadequate when a complaint provides no basis to distinguish their conduct, the court stated that collective allegations may be sufficient when defendants are alleged to have engaged in the same conduct, particularly when related corporate entities are accused of acting together.

The court found that the Second Amended Complaint alleged that all defendants acted in concert. The plaintiffs’ tort claims were brought against “All Defendants,” and the complaint alleged that the defendants collectively helped the Sudanese regime evade United States sanctions by facilitating financial transactions through the United States. The complaint also alleged that funds were cleared through financial institutions in New York, including with the help of employees in the United States; that BNPP N.A. and BNP Paribas, S.A. New York Branch were wholly owned subsidiaries of BNP Paribas S.A. operating from the same address in New York City; and that BNPP N.A. knew or should have known about its alleged contribution to the regime’s conduct.

The court further stated that, before discovery, the plaintiffs were not required to detail precisely which entity performed each part of an alleged joint scheme. Under the Swiss-law standard identified in the earlier order, the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the defendants knew or should have known they were contributing to the Sudanese regime’s illicit acts and that their conduct was a natural and adequate cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. It concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently notified BNPP N.A. of the nature and factual basis of the claims against it. The order resolved docket entry 197.