Allianz Global Investors GmbH et al v. Bank Of America Corporation et al, No. 1:2018cv10364 - Document 760 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER: ORDERED that the February 9, 2021 Order is hereby amended to replace the penultimate paragraph with the following: ORDERED that, the AP Plaintiffs' January 31, 2021, pre-motion letter is construed as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and with respect to AP1 and AP4, such motion is DENIED as moot. The Courts May 28, 2020, Opinion and Order dismissed with prejudice certain claims. Based on the May 28, 2020, Opinion and Order and APl's and AP4's representation that they do not have any remaining claims, they are dismissed from the case. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 2/17/2021) (cf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allianz Global Investors GmbH et al v. Bank Of America Corporation et al Doc. 760 Case 1:18-cv-10364-LGS-SDA Document 760 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ALLIANZ GLOBAL INVESTORS GMBH, et al., Plaintiffs, 18 Civ. 10364 (LGS) - against - []PROPOSED] y y y y y y y y ORDER BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ¶ LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: W & WÍ Ζ Í Η W ΗÍ WHEREAS, on February 9, 2021, the Court issued an Order y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y dismissing Plaintiffs Första & WÍ Ζ Í Η W ΗÍ Ζ D Í Í K K AP-fonden (“AP1”) and Fjarde AP-fonden (“AP4”) from the case. Dkt. 756. W Ζ W Ζ Í y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y yy y Í E Í Í WHEREAS, on February 11, 2021, AP1 and AP4 filed a letter seeking an amendment to the February 9, 2021 Order; it is hereby ORDERED that the February 9, 2021 Order is hereby amended to replace the penultimate paragraph with the following: ORDERED that, the AP Plaintiffs’ January 31, 2021, pre-motion letter is construed as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and with respect to AP1 and AP4, such motion is DENIED as moot. The Court’s May 28, 2020, Opinion and Order dismissed with prejudice claims that did not fall into any recognized FTAIA exception. Because all of y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y AP1’s and AP4’s claims fell outside the FTAIA exception, and AP1 and AP4 do not have any remaining claims, they are dismissed from the case. y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y Í D Í Í K K W Ζ W Ζ Í Í Í & Í E z Í E z Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
