Bank Of Baroda, New York Branch v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-06982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Bank of Baroda v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, Judge Figueredo denied without prejudice the Bank’s motion to strike Defendants’ jury demand.
Bank of Baroda’s request to eliminate the defendants’ jury trial demand was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ jury demand remained in place at this stage.
What happened
Bank of Baroda, New York Branch v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC concerns the Bank’s request to prevent Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC and Rachna Kejriwal from having a jury decide the breach-of-contract case. The defendants had demanded a jury trial.
The Bank argued that it was a foreign state because most of its shares were owned by the Government of India. The court explained that claims against a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act generally must be tried without a jury, but found that the verified complaint did not adequately prove the Bank’s ownership status. The verification did not establish that the person who signed it had personal knowledge of the share ownership.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the motion to strike the jury demand without prejudice. The Bank may raise the motion again before trial if it obtains evidence showing that a majority of its shares are owned by the Government of India.
The detailed version
- Bank Of Baroda, New York Branch v. Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-06982
- Andrew Carter
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
Bank of Baroda, New York Branch brought a breach-of-contract action against Kejriwal Newsprint Mills, LLC, doing business as Resource Reutilization LLC, and Rachna Kejriwal. The defendants answered and asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract. They also demanded a jury trial.
The Bank moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39 to strike the jury demand. It relied on allegations in its verified complaint that it was a banking corporation incorporated under Indian law and that the Government of India owned a majority of its shares.
Issue
The issue was whether the Bank had provided enough evidence at that stage to establish that it was a “foreign state” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The Act includes certain entities that are agencies or instruments of a foreign state, including an entity in which a foreign state owns a majority of the shares or other ownership interest. The Act limits federal-court jurisdiction over an action against a foreign state to a nonjury civil action.
Analysis
The court recognized that a foreign bank whose shares are owned by a foreign government could qualify as a foreign state. But it found that the Bank’s verified complaint did not conclusively establish that fact.
A verified complaint can sometimes serve as an affidavit—a sworn statement used as evidence—if it satisfies the requirements for personal knowledge and admissible facts. Here, the complaint was verified by Satya Narayan Patra, identified as an Assistant General Manager. The verification did not describe Patra’s duties or explain how he knew that the Government of India owned most of the Bank’s shares. The verification also stated that he knew the allegations were true based on the Bank’s records and on his knowledge, belief, and information. The court therefore could not determine from the verification that the ownership allegation was based on Patra’s personal knowledge rather than information and belief. The complaint also lacked factual details supporting the ownership allegation.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the Bank’s motion to strike the jury demand without prejudice. Because such a motion may be considered at any time before trial, the Bank may raise it again if it obtains evidence sufficient to show that the Government of India owns a majority of its shares. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 17.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.