LEWIS A. KAPLAN, United States District Judge
By memorandum opinion of even date, the Court granted the motion of defendant Gnat and others to dismiss the action as against them for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Semi-Tech Litigation LLC v. Bankers Trust Co., No. 02 Civ. 0711 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 8, 2002). The motion of defendant Frank Holmes, which is fully submitted, as well as the separate motions of defendants Tam and List, assert the same position. While plaintiff has not yet responded to the latter two motions, plaintiff's counsel stated on the record in open court today that those motions, insofar as they rely on the alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction, are identical to the Gnat motion and that plaintiff's position on that issue already has been set forth in the papers in opposition to motions already fully submitted.
The situation of defendant Holmes, for subject matter jurisdiction purposes, differs only slightly from those of the defendants as to whom the Court already has dismissed. The same claims are asserted against all of them. The salient difference is that Holmes, unlike those defendants, also allegedly submitted false and misleading certificates to Bankers Trust. But the question whether the certificates he allegedly submitted were false and misleading is quite distinct from the questions whether Bankers Trust failed adequately to examine the certificates and to act appropriately with respect to them, which are at the heart of the Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") claim against it. Thus, although there is a narrative relationship between the alleged breaches of duty by Holmes and Bankers Trust in the sense that all are part of the Semi-Tech story, broadly speaking, the claims against them actually are quite different and do not rest on a common nucleus of operative fact such that both ordinarily would be tried in the same action. In any case, the narrow TIA claim against Bankers Trust would be overwhelmed by the issues pertaining to all of Holmes' alleged misconduct which, as plaintiff suggests, includes such questions as whether the various Semi-Tech transactions breached the indenture, whether they involved self dealing, whether they were fair to the company, and whether their effects were to render the company non-complaint with the financial conditions of the indenture.
The claims against Messrs. List and Tam are even less related to the TIA claim against Bankers Trust. List is a former vice president of Semi-Tech for corporate development. Tam was a vice president and director of the company from 1987 until 1999. The claims against both are identical to those against Messrs. Gnat and others and, for the same reasons, do not bear a relationship to the TIA claim against Bankers Trust sufficient to permit or warrant the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over them.
Accordingly, the motions to dismiss on behalf of defendants Frank Holmes [docket item 45], Chuck C.H. Tam [docket item 117] and Michael H. List [docket item 119] all are granted on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against those defendants.
SO ORDERED.