Case Information
‐ Russia v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 2007, IS PERMITTED IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held at Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, City New York, th day April, thousand seventeen
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges,
PAUL A. CROTTY, Judge. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russia, Plaintiff–Counter ‐ Defendant–Appellee No. Traisman, Defendant–Counter Claimant–Appellant ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Crotty, Southern sitting designation. *2 FOR APPELLANT: E LY G OLDIN Fox Rothschild LLP, Blue Bell, PA. APPELLEE: D ANIEL R UBENS (Robert L. Sills, Igor Marguylan, brief
), Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, NY; Alfred U. Pavlis, Finn Dixon Herling LLP, Stamford, CT. Appeal from a judgment District Court District (Warren W. Eginton, UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment Court in part in part. appeals from Court (Eginton, J.) granting in favor Sberbank Russia. case arises from personal guaranty three commercial loans issued by Sberbank corporation associated with Traisman. ruled in favor counterclaims, mainly preclusive effect obtained proceeding Russia. assume familiarity facts record proceedings, which refer only necessary explain our decision part.
Sitting diversity applying Connecticut’s choice rules, Klaxon Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., U.S. (1941), *3 applied Russian preclusion rule favor. review the application of claim issue preclusion de novo. Proctor LeClaire, F.3d (2d Cir. 2013).
Our review of the applicable provisions of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure the unrebutted expert report submitted Traisman persuades us that the was correct as issue preclusion incorrect as claim preclusion. issue of forgery that Traisman raised counterclaim Russian litigation fully litigated decided on Our reading Article Russian Code Civil Procedure that bars re litigation that issue subsequent lawsuits. But plain text Article Russian Code Civil Procedure expert report, Russian preclusion rules permit subsequent litigation claims not actually asserted proceeding. Here, parties agree Traisman did not assert any his or non forgery litigation. should granted preclusion grounds those new claims defenses.
*4 Finally, Court’s grant prejudgment remedy pursuant Connecticut proper because sought prejudgment remedy an independent Connecticut action enforce rather than bringing “a prospective action . foreign judgment.” Travelers Cas. Sur. Am. Caridi, A.3d (Conn. App. Ct. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we Traisman’s grant prejudgment remedy, further proceedings four remaining counterclaims. We need address award prejudgment interest. considered remaining arguments they are without merit. For foregoing reasons, part, matter further proceedings consistent this order. COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
[1] Notwithstanding erroneous preclusion ruling, however, has his fifth counterclaim ultra vires execution underlying loans, his sixth counterclaim abuse process, seven