LFoundry Rousset v. Atmel Corp.
690 F. App'x 748
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs LFoundry Rousset and a putative class (led by Guerrini) sued Atmel entities and LFoundry GmbH in the SDNY asserting RICO and state-law claims tied to an alleged scheme to transfer a French semiconductor plant to avoid employee-assistance obligations under French law and collective bargaining agreements.
- The district court dismissed the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, conditioned on defendants’ consent to jurisdiction in France; this court affirmed that conditional dismissal in a prior summary order (Guerrini v. Atmel Corp.).
- Plaintiffs later submitted French-court documents and moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and for indicative relief under Rule 62.1, arguing those documents showed LFoundry GmbH had not complied with the district court’s condition (i.e., had opposed French jurisdiction).
- The district court deemed the post-judgment motions moot in light of this court’s summary affirmance; plaintiffs appealed the denial of the 60(b) and 62.1 motions.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in (1) denying indicative relief under Rule 62.1 and (2) being barred by the mandate rule from reconsidering issues already decided on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court should have entertained Rule 62.1 indicative ruling after this Court’s summary affirmance | Plaintiffs: the Court’s summary order did not address late-submitted French-court evidence, so district court should consider the motions | Defendants: Rule 62.1 relief is inappropriate while the appeal was pending and became moot after mandate; no remand required | Court: No abuse of discretion; Rule 62.1 motion moot after mandate return and prior panel declined remand |
| Whether the mandate rule barred district court from reconsidering plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) arguments | Plaintiffs: appellate decision did not explicitly resolve merits of all arguments presented in Rule 60(b) motion | Defendants: prior appellate decision implicitly decided the consent-to-jurisdiction issue; district court must follow mandate | Court: Mandate encompassed the arguments; appellate panel considered French proceedings and found defendants consented, so district court properly foreclosed reconsideration |
| Whether appellate panel overlooked the French-court documents such that relief should be allowed | Plaintiffs: late-adduced documents were not reached in summary order and could change outcome | Defendants: documents were before the appellate court and fully discussed at argument; panel’s consent finding stands | Court: Documents were considered; panel’s conclusion that defendants consented is dispositive; even on remand plaintiffs’ claim would fail on present record |
| Whether plaintiffs may seek relief later if defendants actually fail to withdraw French challenges after U.S. proceedings conclude | Plaintiffs: want immediate relief now | Defendants: no present violation; relief premature | Court: If defendants later fail to withdraw opposition, plaintiffs may file a new Rule 60(b) motion; present record does not justify relief now |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez v. City of New York, 805 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denials)
- McDaniel v. Cty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
- DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266 (2d Cir. 1994) (mandate rule bars district court from altering issues decided on appeal)
- Burrell v. United States, 467 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2006) (trial court must follow appellate rulings on decided issues)
- In re Coudert Bros. LLP, 809 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2015) (mandate implicitly decides enough issues to be effective)
- United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2001) (consult both specific remand dictates and spirit of mandate to see what remains open)
- Francolino v. Kuhlman, 365 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2004) (a claim may be adjudicated on the merits when a reviewing court states remaining contentions are without merit)
- Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976) (appellate mandate relates to the record and issues then before the court and does not address later events)