Marini et al v. Adamo et al
| Rocco Marini and T&R Knitting Mill, Inc. |
| Harry Adamo, Jr., Lisa Adamo, The Bolton Group, Inc. and H. Edward Rare Coins & Collectibles, Inc. |
| 2:2008cv03995 |
| September 30, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending Office |
| Suffolk |
| Joseph F. Bianco |
| E. Thomas Boyle |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
248
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. For the reasons contained herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs have not carried their burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unjust enrichment and money had and received claims against Mrs. Adamo. Wi th respect to the damages question on the Exchange Act claims, having considered the evidence and arguments, plaintiffs have met their burden of proving $6,243,270 in compensatory damages, reflecting transactions occurring after September 30, 20 03, and thus are entitled to that amount on those claims. Finally, defendants advised the Court that the previous Memorandum and Order included an award of post-judgment interest of 9% on the state-law claims, while the award for the Exchange A ct claims reflected the federal rate established under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Defendants correctly observed that both sets of claims should reflect the federal rate for post-judgment interest, and plaintiffs have conceded the point. Therefore, the judgment shall reflect the federal rate for post-judgment interest on all claims. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 4/15/2014. (Lamb, Conor)
|
|
Filing
234
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. For the reasons explained herein, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Adamo, H. Edward, and Bolton violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as well as New York common law for claims of unjust enrichment, and money had and received. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that Adamo breached his fiduciary duty to Marini. The Court also finds that plaintiffs have proven by clear and convincing evidence that A damo, H. Edward, and Bolton committed fraud in violation of New York common law. On the state law claims, once the damages issue on the Exchange Act claim is resolved, the Court will enter judgment in the amount of $11,304,079, plus pre-judgmen t interest calculated at a rate of 9% from January 1, 2005 to the present, as well as post-judgment interest. With respect to the claims against Mrs. Adamo for unjust enrichment, as well as money had and received, the Court concludes that suppl emental briefing is necessary to assist the Court in determining whether liability exists and, if so, the amount of such liability. The Court will set a schedule for additional briefing on the amount of damages for the Exchange Act claim, as well as the claims against Mrs. Adamo, in light of this Memorandum and Order. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 2/6/2014. (Lamb, Conor)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 102 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to plaintiffs' securities fraud, RICO, and state-law fraud and breach of contract claims. Defendants' motion is granted, however, with respect to plaintiffs' General Business Law claim. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 9/26/2011. (Graves, Kelly)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
