Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Kennis v. Metro. West Asset Mgmt., LLC

United States District Court for the Central District of California

July 9, 2019, Decided; July 9, 2019, Filed

CV 15-8162-GW(FFMx)




Attached hereto is the Court's Tentative Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Bench Trial.

Kennis v. Metropolitan West Asset Management, LLC; Case No. 2:15-cv-08162-GW-(FFMx) Tentative Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Following Bench Trial — filed under seal

The Court provisionally issues this tentative decision under seal. Because certain materials presented to the Court were filed under seal and/or testimony from witnesses referenced such information, to the extent that the parties would like the Court to redact any portion of this decision, they should submit by July 18, 2019, a version of this tentative with the proposed redactions. If the parties can stipulate to such redactions, the parties should do so, but if they cannot, the parties should separately submit their proposed redactions.

In addition, to the extent either party considers there to be blatant factual errors in this decision (e.g. a citation to the record that is clearly incorrect), by July 18, 2019, he/it will file a document listing such errors in the same format as utilized for purposes of a statement of disputed facts in the context of a motion [*3]  for summary judgment including: (1) the erroneous factual statement taken verbatim from the decision with citation to the page(s) and lines(s) of the decision wherein the language appears, (2) a statement of up to 75 words as to why that factual statement is in error, and (3) a concomitant reference to testimony and/or exhibit (by page(s) and line(s)) which indisputably demonstrates that the factual statement is incorrect. The other party shall file by July 25, 2019, a document using that matrix and add another column wherein the responding party may indicate its position, if any, as to each of the cited errors and, if the responding party contends that the Court's statement is not in error, he/it shall provide a responsive statement of no more than 75 words and include references to the evidence (again by page and line). This is not an opportunity to generally argue against the Court's credibility determinations, interpretation of the law, or factual findings (where the factual findings are decisions based on competing evidence). The parties may not repeat or rehash arguments made in briefing or oral argument.

I. Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146859 *; 2019 WL 4010747

Thomas J. Kennis v. Metropolitan West Asset Management, LLC

Subsequent History: Adopted by, Judgment entered by, Dismissed by Kennis v. Metro. West Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162598 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2019)

Prior History: Kennis v. Metro. W. Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195627 (C.D. Cal., June 16, 2016)


Subadvised, mutual, advisory, portfolio, third-party, subadvisory, margins, Reply, shareholders, reliable, arm's, sponsoring, deference, opine, qualifications, persuasive, investors, compliance, proffered, median, quantitative, personnel, peer, intermediaries, breakpoints, bargaining, post-trial, Limine, annual, reinvestment