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: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

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