You are on page 1of 3

Case 1:15-cv-02739-TPG Document 11 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3

Martin Domb
Akerman LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
20th Floor
New York, NY 10103
Tel: 212.880.3800
Fax: 212.880.8965

August 3, 2015
VIA ECF

Dir: 212.880.3811
Dir Fax: 212.880.8965
martin.domb@akerman.com

Hon. Thomas P. Griesa


United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:

Petersen Energa Inversora, S.A.U. and Petersen Energa, S.A.U.


v. Argentine Republic and YPF S.A., Case No. 15-cv-2739

Dear Judge Griesa:


We represent defendant the Republic of Argentina (named herein as Argentine Republic)
(the Republic). We write to contest plaintiffs claim of relatedness of this case to a prior case,
which led to this case being assigned to Your Honor, and to request that Your Honor return this
case to the Clerk for random selection of a judge to preside over this case.
The Courts docket in this case reflects that, on April 8, 2015, the Clerk filed the civil
cover sheet and a statement of relatedness, both submitted by plaintiffs counsel (Dkt. 3 and 2,
respectively). For the Courts convenience we enclose copies of those documents. A docket
entry on that same day shows that the Clerk referred the case to Your Honor as possibly related
to 12-cv-3877. That earlier case was Repsol YPF, S.A. et al. v. The Argentine Republic (Case
No. 12-cv-3877) (Repsol).
We respectfully submit that the assignment of this case to Your Honor was not in
accordance with the case assignment provisions set forth in the Local Rules of this Court. Local
Rule 1.6(a) provides (with emphasis added):
It shall be the continuing duty of each attorney appearing in any civil or
criminal case to bring promptly to the attention of the Court all facts
which said attorney believes are relevant to a determination that said case
and one or more pending civil or criminal cases should be heard by the
same Judge, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial effort.
As soon as the attorney becomes aware of such relationship, said attorney
shall notify the Judges to whom the cases have been assigned.
akerman.com

{35160192;1}

Case 1:15-cv-02739-TPG Document 11 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3


Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
August 3, 2015
Page 2

Repsol was not pending at the time the present case was commenced on April 8, 2015. Repsol
was closed on May 12, 2014, as a result of a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice
filed on May 9, 2014. Under Local Rule 1.6(a), plaintiffs had no duty to inform the Court of a
closed prior action potentially related to this one.
Further, the civil cover sheet submitted by plaintiffs (copy enclosed) contains the
following incorrect information:
DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW
PENDING IN S.D.N.Y? IF SO, STATE:
JUDGE Griesa

Docket Number 12-cv-3877

(Bold emphasis added; underscoring in original.) In their related case statement (copy enclosed),
plaintiffs acknowledged that the Repsol case was closed. However, the filing of a related case
statement which was not required under Local Rule 1.6(a) as there was no related pending
case coupled with the incorrect answer on the civil cover sheet that such a case was pending,
evidently caused the Clerk to refer this case to Your Honor as possibly related to Repsol
instead of randomly assigning the case.
We also refer to the Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges for the
Southern District (the Division of Business Rules). The preface thereto states that these rules
are adopted for the internal management of the case load of the court and shall not be deemed to
vest any rights in litigants or their attorneys. However, Rule 13(b)(1) of those rules states that
[a]ny party may contest a claim of relatedness by any other in writing addressed to the judge
having the case with the lowest docket number of all cases claimed to be related.
Rule 13(a)(1) of the Division of Business Rules states that, [s]subject to the limitations
set forth below (see discussion of Rule 13(b)(1) below), a judge should consider the following
factors in determining relatedness:
In determining relatedness, a judge will consider whether (A) the actions
concern the same or substantially similar parties, property, transactions or
events; (B) there is substantial factual overlap; (C) the parties could be
subjected to conflicting orders; and (D) whether absent a determination of
relatedness there would be a substantial duplication of effort and expense,
delay, or undue burden on the Court, parties or witnesses.
An evaluation of these factors shows that the reasons for assigning related cases to the same
judge are not present in this case. Although there is factual overlap between this case and
Repsol, this case involves different plaintiffs, whose factual circumstances and claimed legal
rights differ from those of the plaintiffs in Repsol. There is no risk of conflicting orders, as Your
Honor did not issue any substantive rulings in Repsol before that case was settled and dismissed.
There will not be a substantial duplication of effort and expense, delay, or undue burden on the

{35160192;1}

Case 1:15-cv-02739-TPG Document 11 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3


Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
August 3, 2015
Page 3

Court, the parties, or witnesses, because Repsol was terminated at an early stage (following
briefing of a motion to dismiss and oral argument but before the Court issued any substantive
ruling).
Most importantly, Rule 13(b)(2) limits the application of these four factors as follows:
(2)
Limitations on General Rule. Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)
[which states the four factors quoted above]:
(A)
Civil cases shall not be deemed related merely because they
involve common legal issues or the same parties.
(B)
Other than cases subject to Rule 4(b) and actions seeking
the enforcement of a judgment or settlement in or of an earlier case, civil
cases presumptively shall not be deemed related unless both cases are
pending before the Court (or the earlier case is on appeal).
(Italics added.)
Accordingly, as there was no related pending case at the time this case was
commenced, we respectfully ask that the Court direct the Clerk to reassign this case by random
selection pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Division of Business Rules.
By making this request, the Republic does not waive, and expressly reserves the right to
assert, any and all defenses, including but not limited to defenses based on lack of subject-matter
and personal jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and defenses related to
due process and the Republics right to an adequate and proper legal defense.
Respectfully submitted,

s/ Martin Domb
Copy to:
All counsel of record (via ECF)
Thomas J. Hall, Esq., Attorney for Defendant YPF S.A. (by e-mail)

{35160192;1}