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

Motion and Counterclaim Filed at Eleventh Hour Stricken as Filed in Bad Faith — Inherent Power Sanction

Download PDF

From Strategic Turnaround Equity Partners, LP (Cayman) v. Fife, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63629 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2010):

In this corporate dispute, Plaintiff Strategic Turnaround Equity Partners, L.P. ("Strategic") claims that Defendants United American Healthcare Corporation ("UAHC"), Thomas Goss, St. George Investments, LLC ("St. George"), John Fife, Fife Trading, Inc., Iliad Research and Trading, L.P., and Iliad Management, LLC, have, though their business dealings violated UAHC's Articles of Incorporation, as well as various Michigan statutes. Strategic also claims that Defendants have violated section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 78a, et. seq. ***

After the close of business on Friday, June 25, 2010, four days before UAHC's annual meeting, Defendants UAHC and Goss filed a renewed motion to dismiss aimed at the second amended complaint. The motion simply seeks to challenge the second amended complaint and incorporates by reference the arguments made in the initial motion to dismiss. In addition, UAHC filed a counterclaim against Strategic and a third-party complaint against members of Strategic and others not parties to the original action. In the counterclaim and third-party complaint, UAHC alleges that Strategic and the third-party defendants violated section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements in Strategic's definitive proxy statements beginning March 23, 2010.

The Court finds that UAHC's decision to wait until eve of the Court's decision on the various motions in this case just prior to UAHC's annual meeting, when the basis for the counterclaim and third-party complaint was known before this action was even filed, smacks of bad faith. UAHC has sandbagged Strategic and this Court by filing its pleadings this late in the litigation and this close to UAHC's annual meeting. UAHC was aware of the strict deadline the Court set for Strategic to submit amended jurisdictional allegations due to the necessity of deciding the issues prior to the impending June 29 meeting. The primary relief sought in UAHC's recent pleadings — that the Court order corrective disclosures covering Strategic's misleading statements and omissions in its proxy solicitation for upcoming meeting — would have to be granted before the annual meeting set to take place on June 29, 2010 in order to avoid mooting the claims. This effectively prevents Strategic and the third-party defendants from challenging the counterclaim and third-party complaint prior to the vote.

The Court will strike the pleadings under its inherent powers to sanction conduct undertaken in bad faith. See First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501, 517 (6th Cir. 2002) ("A court may impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers ... when it finds the action in question was taken in bad faith.") (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court's inherent powers are "governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit has long recognized the power of a district court to dismiss cases involving flagrant abuses of the judicial [process]. See Reid v. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 261 F.2d 700, 701 (6th Cir. 1958); Mitan v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 23 Fed. Appx. 292, 298 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). This is one of those cases. There is quite simply no justification for UAHC's decision to wait until the very last minute before filing a counterclaim it was aware existed before this case began. Had it filed its counterclaim sooner, Strategic would have had the chance to answer the pleading or move to dismiss it, and the Court would have had time to decide the matter accordingly. With the annual meeting taking place on June 29, 2010, it is simply impossible for this to be done. The Court will strike the pleadings.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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