Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Al Thani v. Hanke, Judge Cronan ordered jurisdictional discovery before deciding whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Sherry Sims.
The ruling directly affected Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani and Sherry Sims by allowing jurisdictional discovery concerning Sims and staying Sims’s motion to dismiss. It also required the parties to propose a discovery schedule.
What happened
Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani sued Sherry Sims and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Investment Advisers Act and several common-law claims. Sims moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and she later filed for bankruptcy.
After the bankruptcy court lifted the stay for the limited purpose of allowing the claims against Sims to proceed, Al Thani asked for jurisdictional discovery. Jurisdictional discovery is information-gathering about whether a court has authority over a defendant.
Judge John P. Cronan granted Al Thani’s request for jurisdictional discovery and stayed Sims’s motion to dismiss. The court did not decide whether it has personal jurisdiction over Sims; it directed the parties to propose a discovery schedule and allowed for later supplemental briefing.
The detailed version
- Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke · No. 1:20-cv-04765
- John Cronan
- June 16, 2022
Background
Mohammed Thani A.T. Al Thani filed an amended complaint against Alan J. Hanke, IOLO Global LLC, Sidney Mills Rogers III, Laura Romeo, Amy Roy-Haeger, the SubGallagher Investment Trust, and Sherry Sims. The complaint alleged a violation of section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and several common-law claims.
Sims and the Trust moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court previously granted Al Thani’s request for jurisdictional discovery concerning the Trust and stayed the motion as to the Trust. The opinion states that the Trust-related motion was later denied without prejudice after its counsel withdrew and the Trust did not obtain new counsel.
While Sims’s motion was pending, Sims filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court later granted the plaintiffs relief from the automatic stay for the limited purpose of allowing them to litigate their pending claims against Sims in the district court. The stay was lifted for that purpose effective February 2, 2022.
Ruling
In light of the lifted bankruptcy stay and the reasons given in the earlier related proceeding concerning the Trust, the court granted Al Thani’s request for jurisdictional discovery as to Sims. The court stayed Sims’s pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction while that discovery takes place.
The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the appropriate scope of discovery and to file a letter by June 24, 2022, proposing a schedule for completing it. The court stated that it would set a schedule for the discovery and for any supplemental briefing after discovery was completed.
Judge John P. Cronan’s order did not decide whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Sims or whether Sims’s motion to dismiss should ultimately be granted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.