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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT