City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:14-cv-02811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Judge Furman granted summary judgment for lack of standing and dismissed the claims without prejudice.
The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice after the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The defendants referred to as the Exchanges received largely favorable rulings: their motion to exclude Lauers’ opinions was largely granted, and they were granted summary judgment for lack of standing.
What happened
In City of Providence, Rhode Island v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., the court ruled on motions in the plaintiffs’ case against BATS Global Markets, Inc. and other defendants. The judgment refers to the defendants as the Exchanges.
The court largely granted the Exchanges’ motion to exclude Lauers’ opinions and granted the Exchanges summary judgment because the plaintiffs lacked standing. Without standing, the court concluded that it had no authority to hear the claims. The court denied the remaining motions as moot and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.
Judge Furman’s court also maintained under seal, or in redacted form, the filings covered by an earlier sealing order. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- City of Providence, Rhode Island v. Bats Global Markets, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-02811
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 28, 2022
Rulings
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s March 28, 2022 Opinion and Order:
- The Exchanges’ motion to exclude Lauers’ opinions was largely granted. - The Exchanges were granted summary judgment for lack of standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke the federal court’s authority. - Because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on the plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing, the remaining motions were denied as moot. - The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice. The judgment expressly states that the dismissal was without prejudice.
Sealing and Case Status
The court had previously ordered certain filings sealed or submitted in redacted form. After ruling on the underlying motions, it concluded that its earlier findings about those filings still stood. The filings covered by that order, including filings identified as ECF Nos. 809, 829, and 831, were therefore maintained under seal or in redacted form. The case was closed.
Effect of the Ruling
The judgment ended this case because the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ claims. It did not reach the merits of those claims after making that jurisdictional determination.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.