Teck Resources Of Canada In Libertad Act Lawsuit Argues That Plaintiff "fails to identify any jurisdictionally meaningful activities"

HEREDEROS DE ROBERTO GOMEZ CABRERA, LLC v. TECK RESOURCES LIMITED [1:20-cv-21630; Southern Florida District]

Hirzel Dreyfuss & Dempsey, PLLC (plaintiff)
Roig & Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Office of David A. Villarreal, P.A. (plaintiff)
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (defendant)

LINK TO: Defendant Teck Resources Limited’s Notice Of Filing Supplement To Its Response To Motion For Reconsideration And Leave To Amend, And Memorandum Of Law In Support Thereof (6/23/21)

Excerpts:

HRGC argued to this Court that the evidence regarding “Red Dog” was “newly discovered” hoping to convince this Court that the Purported New Evidence was not previously available.

HRGC’s assertion is simply untrue.

Red Dog was formed in 1989 and the information that HRGC now suggests only recently became available has been easily and publicly available for many years. See Exs. A-E. Thus, while this evidence may be new to HRGC because it failed to perform diligence at any earlier time (which seems to be the case for many of the issues before this Court), the information was readily available to anyone who visited the websites of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (www.sec.gov) or Teck itself (www.teck.com), or elsewhere on the Internet. Plaintiff’s evident failure to exercise diligence does not transmute readily available information into newly discovered evidence appropriate for a motion for reconsideration.