Binn et al v. Bernstein et al
| New York Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Louis L Stanton |
| Case #: | 1:17-cv-08594 |
| Nature of Suit | 850 Other Statutes - Securities/Commodities/Exchange |
| Cause | 12:22 Securities Fraud |
| Case Filed: | Nov 06, 2017 |
| Terminated: | Jul 29, 2019 |
| Last checked: Thursday Sep 19, 2019 7:01 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
John Engelman
15 Wits End
Spring Valley, NY 10977 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Salvatore Giardina
Form Holdings Corp. 780 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Andrew R. Heyer
55 Cushman Rd.
Scarsdale, NY 10583 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Donald E. Stout
780 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Andrew D. Perlman
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Bruce T. Bernstein
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Form Holdings Corp.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Richard K. Abbe
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Moreton Binn
599 Branchville Road
Ridgefield, CT 06877 |
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Marisol F, LLC
85 Broad St. 16th Floor 16th Floor New York
NY, NY 10036 |
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 04/26/2024 11:59 PM EDT |
| Friday, February 19, 2021 | ||
| 207 | 207
6
pgs
order
Order on Motion for Sanctions
Fri 02/19 4:17 PM
MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying198 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 chance 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 plaintiffs' 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 their 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 1265, 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) |
|