Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P.
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-02020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Wells Fargo Securities v. LJM Investment Fund, Judge Swain stayed all pretrial deadlines pending discovery in a related case.
The stay affects Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, LJM Investment Fund, L.P., LJM Partners, Ltd., the LJM entities asserting counterclaims, and the pretrial schedule in the current case. It also links the timing of this case to discovery in the related case identified by docket number 23-CV-7115.
What happened
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P. concerns claims and counterclaims arising from financial transactions and the liquidation or transfer of open positions. Wells Fargo asked the court to pause the current case while discovery proceeded in a related case involving the Two Roads fund.
The parties agreed that the cases substantially overlap and that some pause was appropriate, but they disagreed about how long the pause should last. Wells Fargo sought a stay tied to completion of discovery in the related case; LJM preferred a fixed, shorter extension or separate trials.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the request to the extent that the current case, including all pretrial deadlines in the scheduling order, was stayed pending completion of discovery in case number 23-CV-7115.
The detailed version
- Wells Fargo Securities, LLC v. LJM Investment Fund, L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-02020
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 26, 2023
Background
Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (WFS) filed the action against LJM Investment Fund, L.P. and LJM Partners, Ltd., seeking reimbursement for a $16 million debit balance in a clearing account. Several LJM funds later asserted counterclaims alleging that WFS breached a futures commission merchant agreement by not giving LJM enough time to liquidate or transfer open positions.
LJM later filed a related action involving the Two Roads fund. The submitted letter stated that the related action arose from the same transactions and events and involved a claim that LJM’s counsel described as substantially larger than the counterclaims in the original case. The parties agreed that the cases overlapped significantly and should be tried together, but they disagreed about whether the stay should last until discovery in the related action was complete or only for a fixed period.
Request and ruling
WFS requested a stay of all pretrial proceedings in the current case, including the deadline for dispositive motions, until discovery was completed in the related action. Alternatively, WFS requested a 30-day extension of the dispositive-briefing deadline. The court’s order states that it reviewed the parties’ letters and granted the request to the extent that the current case, including all pretrial deadlines in the scheduling order, was stayed pending completion of discovery in case number 23-CV-7115. The order also states that docket entry 226 was resolved.
What the ruling means
This was a case-management ruling about pausing proceedings and coordinating overlapping litigation. The court did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims in this order. The opinion text does not state a new deadline for the current case beyond tying the stay to completion of discovery in case number 23-CV-7115.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.