1

10-1142-cv RSL Communications Plc v. Bildirici et al.



### UNITE D STATES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT



## SUM MARY ORDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT

. C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON O R AFTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AN D T H I S COURT ’ S L O C AL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MU ST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL

.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 26 day of January, two thousand eleven. th 5 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 6 7 Chief Judge, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RSL COMMUNICATIONS PLC, by Michael 14 15 John Andrew Jervis and Steven Anthony Pearson, as the Joint Administrators , 16 17 Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant18 Appellant , 19 20 21 -v.- 10-1142-cv 22 23 ITZHAK FISHER, 24 25 Defendant-Counter-Claimant26 Appellee, 27The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the * official caption to conform to the caption listed above.

2 1 NESIM BILDIRICI, PAUL DOMORSKI, RONALD 2 S. LAUDER, STEVEN SCHIFFMAN, JACOB 3 SCHUSTER, and EUGENE SEKULOW, 4 5 Defendants-Appellees. * 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 FOR APPELLANT: JOHN H. BAE (Adam C. Dembrow, Kaitlin R. 8 9 Walsh, Paul T. Martin, Greenberg Traurig, 10 LLP, New York, NY, and Dan K. Webb, 11 Robert L. Michels, Ryanne L. Easley, 12 Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, on the brief) , Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, 13 14 NY. 15 16 FOR APPELLEES: JOHN S. KIERNAN (Catherine M. Amirfar, 17 Benjamin Sirota, William C. Weeks, on the 18 brief), Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New 19 York, NY. 20 21 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 22 Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.). 23 24 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 25 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 26 AFFIRMED

. 27 2 8 Appellant RSL Communications Plc (“Plc”) app eal s f rom 29 (1) th e j udgmen t e nte red on March 9, 2010 byth e United 30 States District Court for the Southern District of New York 3 1 (Sullivan, J.) , w hic h, int er ali a, gra nte d Appe lle es’ mo tio n 32 forsu mma ry jud gme nt andde nie d P lc’ s m oti on to sup ple men t 33 dis cov ery , p urs uan t t o i ts opi nio n d ate d Augu st 10, 20 09; 34 and(2 ) t he dis tri ct cou rt’ s o rde rs dat ed Feb rua ry 23, 20 09 35 andMa y 4 , 2 009 , r uli ng tha t t he “bu t f or” an d p rox ima te 36 cau sat ion st and ard s w ere ap pli cab le, ra the r t han th e 37 “su bst ant ial fa cto r” sta nda rd. We assume the parties’ 38 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 39 history, and the issues presented for review. 40 41 [1] A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, 42 “resolv[ing] all ambiguities and draw[ing] all permissibleRecent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil ** Procedure (effective December 1, 2010) moved the relevant provision to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), without substantive change.

3 1 factual inferences in favor of the party against whom 2 summary judgment is sought.” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 3 128, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Stern v. Trustees of 4 Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir. 1997)). The 5 den ial ofa mot ion to su ppl eme nt dis cov eryun derFe d. R. 6 Civ . P . 5 6(f ) is re vie wedfo r a bus e o f d isc ret ion

. See ** 7 Mil lerv. Wo lpo ff & Abra mso n, L.L .P. , 3 21 F.3 d 2 92, 30 0 ( 2d 8 Cir . 2 003 ). 9 10 We affirm the district court’s grant of summary 11 judgment and denial of supplementation for substantially the 12 reasons stated in Judge Sullivan’s well-reasoned and 13 scholarly opinion. See RSL Commc’ns Plc v. Bildirici, 649 14 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 15 16 [2] We review the legal standards applied by the district 17 court de novo. See Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 547 18 (2d Cir. 2010). We affirm the district court’s selection of 19 the “but for” and proximate causation standards for 20 substantially the reasons stated in its two orders, dated 21 Feb rua ry 23, 20 09 andMa y 4 , 2 009

. See RSL Commc’ns Plc v. 22 Bildirici, No. 04 Civ. 5217, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37547 23 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2009); RSL Commc’ns Plc v. Bildirici, No. 24 04 Civ. 5217, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13864, 2009 WL 454136 25 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2009). 26 27 We have considered all of Plc’s contentions on this 28 appeal and have found them to be without merit. 29 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby 30 AFFIRMED . Plc’s renewed motion to certify to the New York 31 Court of Appeals the question of New York law regarding 32 fiduciary duties to creditors for a company operating in the 33 “zone of insolvency” is DENIED as moot. 34 35 36 FOR THE COURT: 37 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 38 39 40 41