New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Sanctions — PSLRA Mandatory Rule 11 Review Triggered by Summary Judgment on Federal Securities Claims Even If Pendent State Law Claims Dismissed without Prejudice

Download PDF

From Libaire v. Kaplan, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4640 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010):

Under the PSLRA, "upon final adjudication of the action" a court is required to make specific findings regarding compliance with each requirement of Rule 11(b). See 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(c)(1). Relying upon Unite Here v. Cintas Corp., 500 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), Plaintiff and his counsel argue that because the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, there has been no "final adjudication" as that term is used in the PSLRA. That reliance is misplaced.

The Unite court held that "while '[t]he PSLRA does not define the term final adjudication and there is little case law on its meaning as it is used in Section 78u-4(c)(1)' a plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(I) does not constitute a final adjudication for the purpose of applying PSLRA Section 78u-4(c)." Id. at 337 (quoting Blaser v. Bessemer Trust Co., 2002 WL 31359015, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2002).

Black's Law Dictionary defines adjudication as "the legal process of resolving a dispute; the process of judicially deciding the case." The American Heritage Dictionary defines adjudicate as "to hear and settle (a case) by judicial procedure." To the extent that plaintiff voluntarily dismissed [its] complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(I), [a] dispute has not been "resolved" and the Court has not "decided" the case. Nor has it "heard and settled" the case. By the plain meaning of the term, there has been no "adjudication" in this case, let alone adjudication that is "final."

Id. (quoting Blaser, 2002 WL 3139015, *3).

Here, there has been no "voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(I)." Here, the Court has "heard and settled" the case. This Court determined that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the federal securities fraud claim on statute of limitations grounds and that, as a result of the elimination of the federal claim, the state law claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, there has been a final adjudication by this Court. See DeMarco v. Depotech Corp. , 131 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (final adjudication within the meaning of the PSLRA occurs upon the district court's determination and final disposition of the underlying action); see generally Gurary v. NuTech Bio-Med, Inc., 190 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of federal claims on the merits and state law claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and remanding to district court to make findings required by PSLRA upon final adjudication of private action).

That this Plaintiff's state law claims were dismissed "without prejudice" does not preclude the Court's determination from constituting a "final adjudication" of the action. District courts may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [1367(c)], and often do, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal law claims have been dismissed. Such dismissals are "without prejudice." Acceptance of Plaintiff's argument that the dismissal of any claim without prejudice precludes a final adjudication under the PSLRA could permit circumvention of the PSLRA's mandatory sanctions inquiry by the assertion of a state law claim.

The Court's determination granting Defendants summary judgment on the federal securities law claims and dismissing the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction constituted a "final adjudication" within the meaning of the PSLRA.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice