Binn et al v. Bernstein et al
| Moreton Binn and Marisol F, LLC |
| Bruce T. Bernstein, Richard K. Abbe, Andrew D. Perlman, Salvatore Giardina, Andrew R. Heyer, Donald E. Stout, John Engelman and Form Holdings Corp. |
| 1:2017cv08594 |
| November 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Louis L. Stanton |
| Securities/Commodities/Exchanges |
| 12 U.S.C. ยง 22 |
| Plaintiff |
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
207
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 198 Motion for Sanctions: "The fact that a legal theory i s a long-shot does not necessarily mean it is sanctionable. The operative question is whether the argument is frivolous, i.e., the legal position has no cha nce of success, and there is no reasonable argument to extend, modify or reverse the law as it stands." Fishoff v. Coty Inc., 634 F.3d 647, 654 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). This Court previously found that pla intiffs' allegations under Section l0(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Counts I and II, respectively) were sufficient tostate a claim. See August 6, 2018 Memorandum and Order (Dkt. No. 81). At that point, plaintiffs had reason to believe that t heir arguments had at least some chance of success, and there is no evidence that discovery later revealed that the allegations had no chance of success. Imposition of sanctions is thus unwarranted in this case. See Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F. 2d 126 5, 1275 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[R]ule 11 is violated only when it is patently clear that a claim has absolutely no chance of success." ) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). So ordered. (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 2/19/2021) (ml)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER: The September 24, 2020 Mandate of the Court of Appeals having been received, Defendant Abbe shall, within the next three weeks, specify each claim it argues should be sanctioned. Each claim should be stated with sufficient precision to evoke a separate judicial determination. The list must be served on Plaintiff but not filed or presented to the Court until 21 days thereafter, as directed in FRCP 11 (c) (2). Opposing affidavits and answering memoranda shall be served within fourteen days after service of the moving papers, and any reply affidavits and memoranda shall be served within seven days after service of the answering papers, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.l(b). (Signed by Judge Louis L. Stanton on 9/25/2020) (rro)
|
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 Southern 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.
