38 | May/June 2022 | BAEC Bulletin
compliance based on promissory and equitable estoppel. While the Court recognized that the statute of frauds can be trumped by those equitable doctrines, that is only where a plaintiff demonstrates “unconscionable injury,” which is lacking where the alleged injuries consist solely of lost revenue and profits, reputational harm and lost business opportunities. Because those were precisely the injuries plaintiff alleged it suffered, the narrow exception plaintiff sought to rely on could not apply as a matter of law, and plaintiff’s contract-based claims were dismissed under the statute of frauds. Insurance In New York Life Ins. Co. v. Oldham et al. , No. 19-cv-669- EAW (Feb. 1, 2022), plaintiff commenced an interpleader action to deposit the proceeds of two life insurance policies pending a determination of rights to recovery by the two defendants, both of whom had been named beneficiaries. The moving defendant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking recovery of all of the proceeds on grounds that the non-moving defendant was responsible for the death of the decedent, thus barring him from any recovery under the so-called Slayer Rule. The non-moving defendant was found to be incapacitated by the Office of Mental Health and unfit for trial, and later was indicted on a charge of murder in the second degree, which remained pending at the time of the motion. The Court denied the motion because disputed issues of fact precluded the Court from finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the non-moving defendant had acted recklessly or intentionally to cause the death of decedent as is required by the Slayer Rule. The non-moving defendant had not been convicted of the murder, the Grand Jury indictment alone did not constitute sufficient proof of a reckless or intentional death, and the non-moving defendant had been adjudicated an incompetent person, all of which made an award of summary judgment on the facts presented premature. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Partial Final Judgments In Horn v. Med. Marijuana, Inc. , No. 15-cv-00701-JWF (Jan. 24, 2022), defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s two remaining claims just four days before trial, contending it identified potentially dispositive defects with those claims. The trial was cancelled and, after motion practice,
the Court dismissed plaintiff’s civil RICO claim and rescheduled the trial on plaintiff’s sole remaining claim for fraud. Plaintiff then moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), seeking entry of a partial final judgment concerning the dismissal of his civil RICO claim so that he could immediately appeal the Court’s ruling. Noting first that Rule 54(b) creates an exception to the general principle that a final judgment is proper only after the rights and liabilities of all parties to the action have been adjudicated in order to preserve the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals, the Court then observed that the determination of whether to grant a motion under Rule 54(b) is committed to its sound discretion. In exercising that discretion, the Court should consider, among other things, judicial administrative interests, as well as the equities involved. For example, a motion under Rule 54(b) should not be granted if the same or closely related issues remain to be litigated. But here, the Court found that plaintiff sought to appeal a discrete question of statutory interpretation that does not implicate the remaining fraud claim, so there was no risk that the Second Circuit would be forced to review identical legal issues in the event of a subsequent appeal. In addition, pretrial resolution of the RICO issue would mitigate the financial and personal hardships that plaintiff would suffer in connection with duplicative trials if the Court’s ruling on the RICO claim was reversed after a trial on the fraud claim. Finally, as defendants pointed out, definitive appellate resolution of plaintiff’s civil RICO claim could dramatically alter the potential damages available to plaintiff and may help facilitate settlement. For those reasons, the Court concluded that there is no just reason to delay the appeal and granted plaintiff’s motion. •
Powered by FlippingBook