Appeal moot, but attorney fees allowed

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal as moot but awarded the defendant appellate attorney fees and costs because the plaintiff engaged in procedural and substantive bad faith during the appeals process.

In Samuel Lesjak v. New England Financial, No. 29A02-0706-CV-499, Lesjak appealed the trial court's order that he arbitrate a claim filed against him by New England Financial in a forum other than the National Association of Securities Dealers. Lesjak worked for New England Securities as a broker/dealer. He registered with NASD to be able to buy and sell securities to the public. The agreement he signed when he was hired stated Lesjak would agree to arbitrate through NASD any dispute or claim that may arise between himself and New England Securities.

Lesjak had an assistant, whose salary was reimbursed by New England Securities. After Lesjak quit, the company sought the return of past payments to Lesjak for his assistant's salary in the sum of more than $24,000.

New England Financial filed a complaint against Lesjak to recoup the money. A letter attached to the complaint stated New England Financial is not a legal entity and is the service mark for New England Life Insurance Co. The complaint never stated which company was suing Lesjak.

Lesjak tried to arbitrate the claim through NASD, but New England Financial opposed it. The trial court ordered the parties to submit the matter to NASD arbitration, but eventually granted New England Financial's motion for a stay of proceedings because New England Financial is not a member of NASD and cannot arbitrate through them. The court ordered Lesjak to arbitrate the matter through another forum besides NASD. Lesjak appealed, and New England Financial was granted a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance. New England Financial explained that NASD, now the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, agreed to arbitrate the claim and this appeal should not move forward.

Lesjak filed a motion in opposition to holding the appeal in abeyance and sought a request for damages. He contended that because New England Financial acted with both procedural and substantive bad faith he should be awarded damages.

New England Financial missed the date on which to file a brief and was not granted an extension. The company filed its brief a week later and filed a motion to include documents outside of the clerk's record in its appendix.

The core issue of the appeal - whether the trial court properly ordered the matter be arbitrated, but not before NASD - is moot because arbitration is under way, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. However, the appellate court denied New England Financial's motions for extension of time to file its brief and to include documents outside of the clerk's record in its appendix. New England Financial was told it was required to file its brief by Nov. 13, 2007, and no extensions would be granted.

Chief Judge Baker wrote that based on New England Financial's actions during litigation of this case and the appeal, New England Financial clearly engaged in both procedural and substantive bad faith during the appeal, if not the entire litigation. The company fought for months to not arbitrate the claim and claimed arbitration with NASD would be impossible because New England Financial was not an NASD member, but the company then suddenly said arbitration would be accepted.

Lesjak has spent more than $19,000 in attorney fees seeking arbitration. He has established he is entitled to appellate attorney fees and costs pursuant to Appellate Rule 66(E) because of New England's bad faith during this appeal.

The case is remanded to the trial court for a calculation of the amount of attorney fees and costs Lesjak is entitled to and for the trial court to consider if Lesjak is entitled to attorney fees for New England Financial's conduct prior to this appeal.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.