Akhmed Gadzhievich v. Herman Gref
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-09153
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Bilalov v. Gref, Judge Gardephe denied Bilalov’s stay request because his appeal challenged a non-final dismissal order.
The ruling allowed the district court to continue handling Bilalov’s request to file a third amended complaint rather than pausing that request during his appeal.
What happened
Akhmed Gadzhievich Bilalov sued Herman Gref, Sberbank CIB USA, Inc., Sberbank of Russia PJSC, and others under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and other laws. A prior order dismissed his second amended complaint but allowed him to seek permission to amend one abuse-of-process claim.
Bilalov appealed the prior dismissal order and asked the district court to pause his request to file a third amended complaint until the appeal ended. The court explained that the prior order was not final because Bilalov had been allowed to amend, and therefore the appeal was not appealable at that point.
Judge Gardephe denied Bilalov’s request for a stay and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The court also set December 20, 2022, as the deadline for any reply concerning Bilalov’s request to file a third amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Akhmed Gadzhievich v. Herman Gref · No. 1:20-cv-09153
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
Akhmed Gadzhievich Bilalov brought claims against Herman Gref, Sberbank CIB USA, Inc., Sberbank of Russia PJSC, and unidentified defendants. The claims included violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, malicious abuse of process, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act.
In a September 13, 2022 order, Judge Torres granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. That order allowed Bilalov to request permission to file a third amended complaint for the limited purpose of amending his abuse-of-process claim. Bilalov filed that request on October 4, 2022.
Appeal and request for a stay
Bilalov later filed a notice of appeal concerning the September 13 dismissal order. He stated that the appeal did not concern the abuse-of-process claim, which he intended to pursue separately through his request to amend. He then asked the district court to hold that amendment request until the appeal was resolved.
The court explained that appeals generally may be taken from final decisions. An order that resolves fewer than all claims or parties is ordinarily not final and may be revised before the court enters a judgment resolving the entire case. A district court may direct entry of a final judgment on fewer than all claims or parties only if it expressly finds that there is no just reason for delay.
Here, Judge Torres had not directed entry of a final judgment. Instead, the September 13 order dismissed the case with leave to amend. Because Bilalov had moved for leave to amend and sought to pause that motion pending appeal, the order remained non-final and non-appealable. The filing of a notice of appeal from a non-appealable order therefore did not transfer jurisdiction away from the district court or prevent it from proceeding.
Ruling
The court denied Bilalov’s motion for a stay. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, and any reply concerning the request to file a third amended complaint was due by December 20, 2022. Judge Gardephe did not decide the merits of Bilalov’s underlying claims in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.