690 Fed.Appx. 748 (2nd Cir. 2017), 16-2566-cv, Rousset v. Atmel Corp.
|Citation:||690 Fed.Appx. 748|
|Party Name:||LFOUNDRY ROUSSET, SAS, JEAN YVES GUERRINI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ATMEL CORPORATION, ATMEL ROUSSET, SAS, LFOUNDRY GMBH, Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: PHILIPPE JEAN JOSEPH PRADAL (Lauren Anne Marshall, on the brief), Pradal & Associates PLLC, New York, New York. APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: SAMUEL J. RUBIN (Marshall H. Fishman, on the brief), Goodwin Procter LLP, New York New York, for Atmel Corporation and Atmel Rousset, ...|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||May 19, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter and Not to be Cited as Precedent. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Laura Taylor Swain, Judge).
Lfoundry Rousset SAS v. ATMEL Corp., (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2015)
APPEARING FOR APPELLANTS: PHILIPPE JEAN JOSEPH PRADAL (Lauren Anne Marshall, on the brief), Pradal & Associates PLLC, New York, New York.
APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: SAMUEL J. RUBIN (Marshall H. Fishman, on the brief), Goodwin Procter LLP, New York New York, for Atmel Corporation and Atmel Rousset, SAS. GREGORY F. HAUSER, Wuersch & Gering LLP, New York, New York, for LFoundry GmbH.
PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order entered on June 27, 2016, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs LFoundry Rousset, SAS, and a putative class of its employees, led by Jean Yves Guerrini, appeal from the denial of their Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and 62.1 motions, which the district court characterized as moot in light of this court's summary order affirming the conditional dismissal of the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds.
Plaintiffs had asserted claims under RICO, as well as for fraud, tortious interference with contracts, and trespass to chattel, and had sought a declaration voiding certain contracts, based on what plaintiffs allege was a scheme by defendants Atmel Corporation, Atmel Rousset, SAS, and LFoundry GmbH fraudulently to convey a semiconductor manufacturing unit in France to a near-insolvent buyer to dispose of it without paying employee assistance, as mandated by French labor law and collective bargaining agreements. The district court ruled that France was a more appropriate forum and conditioned its dismissal on the defendants' consent to jurisdiction in France, which was the disposition we affirmed on the first appeal. See Guerrini v. Atmel Corp., 667 Fed.Appx. 308 (2d Cir. 2016).
During the prior appeal, this court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended motion for judicial notice of French court documents allegedly evincing LFoundry...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP