ILNews

Appeal moot, but attorney fees allowed

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
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.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT