13-3577
Moskal, et al. v. Pandit, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND 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 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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 20th day of August, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 STANLEY MOSKAL, derivatively on
13 behalf of Citigroup, Inc., SILVESTER
14 SCIUTO, derivatively on behalf of
15 Citigroup, Inc., JAMES KENNEY,
16 derivatively on behalf of Citigroup,
17 Inc.,
18 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
19
20 -v.- 13-3577
21
22 VIKRAM PANDIT, JOHN C. GERSPACH, JOHN
23 P. HAVENS, MANUEL MEDINA MORA, ALAIN
24 J.P. BELDA, TIMOTHY C. COLLINS, ROBERT
25 L. JOSS, MICHAEL E. O’NEILL, RICHARD
26 D. PARSONS, LAWRENCE RICCIARDI, JUDITH
27 RODIN, ROBERT RYAN, ANTHONY M.
28 SANTOMERO, DIANA L. TAYLOR, WILLIAM S.
1
1 THOMPSON, JR., ERNESTO ZEDILLO PONCE
2 DE LEON, BRIAN LEACH,
3 Defendants-Appellees,
4
5 CITIGROUP, INC.,
6 Nominal-Defendant-Appellee.
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
8
9 FOR APPELLANTS: CHRISTOPHER NELSON (Robert B.
10 Weiser, Brett D. Stecker,
11 Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, and Joseph
12 M. Profy, The Weiser Law Firm,
13 P.C.; Curtis V. Trinko, Jennifer
14 E. Traystman, and C. William
15 Margrabe, Law Offices of Curtis
16 V. Trinko, LLP; Brian P.
17 Robbins, Felipe J. Arroyo, Shane
18 P. Sanders, and Julia M.
19 Williams, Robbins Arroyo LLP;
20 Katharine M. Ryan and Richard A.
21 Maniskas, Ryan & Maniskas LLP,
22 on the brief), The Weiser Law
23 Firm, P.C., Berwyn, PA.
24
25 FOR APPELLEES: MARY EATON (Sameer Advani, on
26 the brief), Wilkie Farr &
27 Gallagher LLP, New York, NY, for
28 Alain J.P. Belda, Timothy C.
29 Collins, Robert L. Joss, Michael
30 E. O’Neill, Richard D. Parsons,
31 Lawrence R. Ricciardi, Judith
32 Rodin, Robert L. Ryan, Anthony
33 M. Santomero, Diana L. Taylor,
34 William S. Thompson, Jr., and
35 Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon.
36
37 BRAD S. KARP (Richard A. Rosen
38 and Susanna M. Buergel, on the
39 brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
40 Wharton & Garrison LLP, New
41 York, NY, for Vikram Pandit,
42 John P. Havens, John C.
43 Gerspach, Manuel Medina-Mora,
44 and Brian Leach.
45
46 STEVEN M. BIERMAN (Jonathan W.
47 Muenz, on the brief), Sidley
2
1 Austin LLP, New York, NY, for
2 Citigroup, Inc.
3
4 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
5 Court for the Southern District of New York (Oetken, J.).
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
8 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
9 AFFIRMED.
10
11 A putative plaintiff class appeals from the judgment of
12 the United States District Court for the Southern District
13 of New York (Oetken, J.), denying its motion for attorney’s
14 fees and request for discovery. We assume the parties’
15 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
16 history, and the issues presented for review.
17
18 The denial of a fee application is reviewed for abuse
19 of discretion. Scarangella v. Grp. Health, Inc., 731 F.3d
20 146, 151 (2d Cir. 2013). Likewise, we review a district
21 court’s decision to deny discovery for abuse of discretion.
22 Goetz v. Crosson, 41 F.3d 800, 805 (2d Cir. 1994). The
23 district court denied the application because the
24 plaintiffs’ complaint was not rendered moot, and the
25 plaintiffs failed to show a causal connection between their
26 actions and those taken by the defendants. See generally In
27 re Citigroup Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 12 Civ.
28 3114(JPO), 2013 WL 4441511, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19,
29 2013). The district court further ruled that discovery as
30 to causation was unwarranted given the undisputed facts in
31 the record. Id. at *6.
32
33 For substantially the reasons set forth in the district
34 court’s well-reasoned opinion, we affirm the judgment. We
35 have considered the remainder of the plaintiffs’ arguments
36 and find them to be without merit.
37
38
39 FOR THE COURT:
40 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
41
3