Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 3, 2024

IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:18-cv-02830
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureAntitrust
In one sentence

In Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, Judge Oetken reopened the case after an appellate reversal and ordered a joint status letter.

Who this affects

The parties in lead case 18-CV-2830 must confer and file a joint status letter by April 24, 2024. The consolidated member cases remain closed and retain their separate identities.

What happened

In In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, the Second Circuit had vacated this court’s dismissal. The opinion does not describe the reasons for that appellate decision.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to reopen lead case 18-CV-2830. The member cases consolidated with it were to remain closed and keep their separate identities.

Judge Oetken ordered the parties to discuss what should happen next and file a joint status letter stating each party’s position by April 24, 2024. The order did not decide the antitrust claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION · No. 1:18-cv-02830
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Apr. 3, 2024

Background

The Second Circuit had vacated the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of the case. The opinion does not explain the basis for the appellate court’s decision.

Order

The court directed the Clerk of Court to reopen lead case 18-CV-2830. The member cases consolidated with the lead case were to remain closed and retain their separate identities, citing Hall v. Hall, 583 U.S. 59, 70–78 (2018).

The parties were directed to confer and file a joint status letter by April 24, 2024. The letter must address each party’s position on further proceedings.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken reopened the lead case and ordered the parties to submit the status letter. This order addressed case management after the appellate decision; it did not resolve the underlying antitrust claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.