Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LLC

United States District Court, District of Columbia

January 17, 2019

VANTAGE COMMODITIES FINANCIAL SERVICES I, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ASSURED RISK TRANSFER PCC, LLC et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          TREVOR N. MCFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Court allowed Vantage to file an amended complaint in this case. See Vantage Commodities Fin. Servs. I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LLC (“Vantage II”), No. 1:17-CV-01451, 2018 WL 6025774, at *6 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2018). The Reinsurer Defendants now ask the Court to reconsider this Order or alternatively to certify it for interlocutory appeal. For the reasons given below, the Court will deny their motion.

         I. BACKGROUND[1]

         In Vantage II, the Court granted in part and denied in part Vantage's motion for leave to amend its Complaint. Id. at *1. First, it held that Vantage had not stated a claim for breach of contract because Vantage had failed to allege facts showing that the Credit Insurance Binders created a contractual relationship. Id. at *2. But it determined that Vantage adequately stated claims for (1) breach of implied contract; (2) promissory estoppel; and (3) unjust enrichment. Id. at *2-*5. The Court also gave Vantage more time to attempt to serve the Reinsurer Defendants with its Amended Complaint. Id. at *5.

         The Reinsurer Defendants moved for reconsideration or in the alternative certification of interlocutory appeal. Defs. Syndicate 4472, Syndicate 2001, Syndicate 1206, and Catlin Re Switzerland's Mot. for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal (“Mot.”); ECF No. 94; Defs. Hannover Rückversicherung AG, Partner Reinsurance Europe PLC, and Caisse Centrale de Reassurance's Joinder in Mot. for Reconsideration (“Joinder”), ECF No. 95. Vantage opposes. Opp. to Mot. for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal (“Opp.”), ECF No. 98.[2]

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         The Court may revise interlocutory orders “at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). This rule “recognizes [a court's] inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order ‘as justice requires.'” Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217, 227 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “While the phrase, ‘as justice requires,' is somewhat abstract, it is a shorthand for more concrete considerations.” Singh v. George Washington Univ., 383 F.Supp.2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 266, 272 (D.D.C. 2004)). Those considerations include “whether the court ‘patently' misunderstood a party, made a decision beyond the adversarial issues presented to the court, made an error in failing to consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling or significant change in the law or facts has occurred since the submission of the issue to the Court.” Youssef v. Holder, 62 F.Supp.3d 96, 98 (D.D.C. 2014) (citation omitted).

         Whether to allow an interlocutory appeal of a non-final order is left to the discretion of the district court. Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 47 (1995). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the court may certify an order for interlocutory appeal when “(1) the order involves a controlling question of law; (2) a substantial ground for difference of opinion concerning the ruling exists; and (3) an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation.” APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint Commc'ns Co., 297 F.Supp.2d 90, 95 (D.D.C. 2003); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The party seeking interlocutory review has the burden of persuading the court to depart from the general policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment. See id.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. The Court Will Deny the Reinsurer Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.

         The Reinsurer Defendants claim that the Court's Order in Vantage II “departs from established reinsurance law and creates new rights for Vantage under relevant contracts.” Mot. at 4. First, the Court did not create new law about “which entitles have the ability to bind a reinsurer or have standing in a litigation to enforce a contract in violation of an arbitration provision.” Mot. at 5. Far from it. Rather, the Court made a narrow determination: given that the Court must “draw all reasonable inferences . . . in the plaintiff's favor, ” at this early stage, the Court determined that Vantage had pled enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss on three equitable claims. See Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Such a determination was limited to the specific allegations in Vantage's Amended Complaint. In any event, the Reinsurer Defendants offer no authority for their claim that the Court is breaking ground in agency jurisprudence.[3]

         The Reinsurer Defendants vehemently insist that Willis did not act as their agent. Mot. at 5. Indeed, the evidence may reveal that they are correct. But as the Court has explained, “[w]hether Vantage can prove that ART and the Willis Defendants acted as agents for the Reinsurer Defendants is yet to be seen, but Vantage has alleged sufficient facts in support of its allegation of agency at this early stage.” Vantage II, 2018 WL 6025774, at *3.

         After the Court granted leave for Vantage to file an amended complaint, the Reinsurer Defendants started arbitration against ART on the terms of the Reinsurance Agreement. Mot. at 7-8. And now the Reinsurer Defendants insist that the Court should reconsider its Order because now Vantage can stand in ART's shoes in this arbitration. Id. This allegedly parallel arbitration-started only now by the Reinsurer Defendants-hardly shows that the Court's earlier Order was incorrect. In any ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.