Schur v. Dougan
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:23-cv-10944
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Schur v. Dougan, Judge McMahon received plaintiffs’ request to consolidate related cases; the provided text contains no ruling.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Schur v. Dougan and the two related cases identified in the letter; the text does not state the effect of any ruling because no ruling is included.
What happened
Schur v. Dougan concerns a letter from plaintiffs’ counsel about this case and two related cases involving claims by holders of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds.
The plaintiffs asked the court to allow a consolidated amended complaint and consolidated briefing, arguing that the cases involve the same defendants, events, and statutory duty. They also supported a request in a related case to file a sur-reply addressing allegedly new opinions by defendants’ Swiss-law expert.
Judge Colleen McMahon is identified as the judge, but the provided text is an advocacy letter rather than a court ruling and does not state how either request was decided.
The detailed version
- Schur v. Dougan · No. 1:23-cv-10944
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 2, 2024
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a December 29, 2023 letter from counsel for plaintiffs in Schur v. Dougan and two related cases. It asks Judge McMahon to permit consolidated litigation-related filings. The text does not include a judicial order or a disposition.
Background
The letter states that Schur and a related case brought by Hohimer Wealth Management assert the same claim against the same defendants based on the same events as Star Colbert. The cases concern claims brought on behalf of holders of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds. The letter states that the plaintiff in Schur is a U.S. citizen residing in Florida and that the plaintiff in the Hohimer case is a U.S.-based asset manager headquartered in Seattle.
Requested Consolidation
Plaintiffs asked the court to allow a consolidated amended complaint and consolidated briefing. They argued that consolidation would promote judicial economy and efficiency. The letter also argued that the U.S.-based plaintiffs’ forum choice was entitled to greater consideration in evaluating the defendants’ forum non conveniens motion, which seeks dismissal in favor of another forum. The letter stated that deciding the motion first in Star Colbert could require the court to revisit the issue in Schur and Hohimer.
Requested Sur-Reply
The letter also addressed the Star Colbert plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply. A sur-reply is an additional filing responding to arguments or evidence raised in a reply. Plaintiffs said that defendants’ Swiss-law expert, Grolimund, offered new or contradictory opinions in a supplemental declaration. The proposed sur-reply concerned whether Swiss law permits a creditor’s direct claim under Article 754 paragraph 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, including issues involving direct loss, protective legal rules, and whether a breach must have been directed against the creditor.
Disposition
The provided text does not state whether Judge McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise decided the request to consolidate filings or the request to file a sur-reply. Because no ruling is included, the document cannot establish a holding on those requests.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.