United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.: No. 1029, Docket 87-7059
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.: No. 1029, Docket 87-7059
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs822 F.
2d 14
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,298, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6678
John P. CAHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN & COMPANY, a Partnership
enterprise,
Defendant-Appellee.
John P. CAHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Robert CHAMBERS, J. Kevin Murphy, Joseph F. Carlino,
James
E. Healey, Marc C. Gillen and John Does 1-5,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 1029, Docket 87-7059.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued April 28, 1987.
Decided June 29, 1987.
John P. Cahill, New York City, pro se.
Bertrand C. Sellier, New York City (Sidney H. Stein, Stein, Zauderer,
Ellenhorn, Frischer & Sharp, New York City, on the brief), for defendantappellee Arthur Andersen & Co.
Daniel G. Gurfein, New York City (James F. Rittinger, David G. Curran,
Satterlee & Stephens, New York City, on the brief), for defendantappellee Chambers.
Julian Jawitz, Mineola, N.Y. (Carlino, Lefkowitz, Bornes & Bolstad, P.C.,
Mineola, N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees Murphy, Carlino,
Haley and Gillen.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff pro se John P. Cahill appeals from a December 22, 1986 judgment
entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York ("1986 Judgment"), Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Judge, (1) summarily
dismissing his complaint against defendant Arthur Andersen & Company
("Andersen"), which alleged that Andersen had conspired with others in
violation of, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. (1982), and Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) (1982), to force Cahill to sell his interest in
Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc., and (2) denying his motion pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the judgment in Cahill v. Chambers, 82 Civ. 6327
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1983) ("1983 Judgment"), which had been entered pursuant
to an agreement among all of the parties therein, who did not include Andersen,
to settle Cahill's similar claims against the defendants therein. We find no abuse
of discretion in the denial of relief from the 1983 Judgment, and we affirm the
1986 Judgment on the ground that the 1983 Judgment constituted res judicata
for the reasons stated by Judge Cedarbaum in her opinion dated December 17,
1986, published at 659 F.Supp. 1115.
You might also like
- No ratings yetThomas v. McLaughlin Joseph Gall MacGall Inc. And MacGall Associates Limited Partnership v. Arthur Anderson Capital Housing Financing Corporation, Inc. Imagineers, Inc. David Harrity and Handler and Friar Architects, Inc., Also Known as Handler Associates Architects, 962 F.2d 187, 2d Cir. (1992)18 pages
- No ratings yetJohn J. Pomerantz, Walter Leiter, Alan Golub, Fred Pomerantz and Ralph Iannazzone, Plaintiffs-Counterclaim v. Ira D. Schandler, Carolina Erath 1978 Associates, Carolina Erath 1979 Associates and Carolina Energy Corporation, and M. Albert Nissim, Defendant-Counterclaim v. Leslie Fay Inc., Additional Counterclaim Golenbock and Barell, Movants-Appellants, 704 F.2d 681, 2d Cir. (1983)5 pages
