Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan
Decision Date | 31 March 2009 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 07-2076-cv. |
Citation | 561 F.3d 123 |
Parties | MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION and Nokia Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kemal UZAN, Cem Cengiz Uzan, Murat Hakan Uzan, Melahat Uzan, Aysegul akay, and Antonio Luna Betancourt, Defendants-Appellants.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Howard H. Stahl (Stephen K. Davidson and Bruce C. Bishop, on the brief), Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellee Motorola Credit Corp.
Jason Brown, Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY, and David D. Howe, Holland & Knight LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee Nokia Corp.
May Orenstein, Brown Rudnick LLP, New York, N.Y. (David Molton, Brown Rudnick LLP, New York, N.Y. and R. Stan Mortenson, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC, on the brief) for Defendants-Appellants.
Before CABRANES, WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.**
The principal question in this appeal is whether a judgment for damages must be amended pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where plaintiffs have partially recovered from other sources and have agreed to use this partial recovery as a "set-off" against the judgment. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the relief available under Rule 60(b) is both discretionary and equitable, and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' motion for post-judgment relief.
Defendants-appellants—members of the Uzan family of Turkey and a close associate, Antonio Luna Betancourt (collectively, the "Uzans" or "defendants")—are the former, controlling shareholders of Telsim Tekelomunikayson Mobil Hizmetleri A.S. ("Telsim"), a now-defunct Turkish telecommunications company. The Uzans are well known to the courts of our Circuit, as there are already ten published decisions in this Circuit chronicling the background of this case and "the extraordinary nature of the Uzans' wrongful behavior." Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 509 F.3d 74, 88 (2d Cir.2007) ("Uzan X"); see also id. at 77-80 ( ); Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 388 F.3d 39, 42-44 (2d Cir.2004) ("Uzan VII") ( ).1 Briefly, in July 2003 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge) found that the Uzans defrauded plaintiffs Motorola Credit Corporation ("Motorola") and Nokia Corporation ("Nokia") out of more than $ 2 billion. See Uzan VII, 388 F.3d at 42. The District Court awarded compensatory damages in excess of $2 billion and an equal sum in punitive damages, see Uzan III, 274 F.Supp.2d at 580-81, but later reduced the award of punitive damages to $1 billion, see Uzan IX, 413 F.Supp.2d at 353, following a remand by a panel of this Court, see Uzan VII, 388 F.3d at 65.
The instant appeal concerns the denial by the District Court, in an unpublished order entered April 11, 2007, of the Uzans' motion for post-judgment relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 See Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, No. 02 Civ. 0666, 2007 WL 1098689, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27377 (S.D.N.Y. April 11, 2007). The Uzans sought three forms of relief from the District Court: (1) a reduction in the judgment for compensatory damages awarded to Motorola and Nokia, equal to the sums plaintiffs have recovered in settlement agreements with the Turkish Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ("SDIF"), which seized control of Telsim in 2004; (2) a discharge of the compensatory damages awarded to Motorola because Motorola has assigned its contract claims against Telsim to Bayindirbank, a bank controlled by the Republic of Turkey; and (3) an end to a permanent injunction, imposed pursuant to the District Court's July 31, 2003 Opinion and Order, see Uzan III, 274 F.Supp.2d at 581-82. On appeal, the Uzans argue that the District Court erred in denying all three forms of relief.
Rule 60(b) provides "a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief [available] only if the moving party demonstrates exceptional circumstances," Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), and relief under the rule is discretionary, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) . We therefore review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ruotolo, 514 F.3d at 191; cf. Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) .
As the District Court found, Motorola and Nokia have settled certain contractual claims with Telsim, acting through SDIF, and each plaintiff has received cash payments from Telsim that, together, exceed $1.2 billion. Plaintiffs have "set off" these amounts against their judgments, "resulting in a pro tanto reduction in the amounts owed by the Individual Defendants," who still owe "hundreds of millions" in damages. Motorola Credit Corp., 2009 WL 819041, at *2, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27377, at *2. The Uzans argue that "[a] district court must reduce a judgment under ... Rule 60(b)(5) ... if the plaintiff's injury has been fully or partially satisfied by another judgment or settlement." Appellant's Br. at 25 (emphasis added). They further posit that plaintiffs' set-off is unreliable because there is a risk that plaintiffs will apply their settlement compensation to the punitive, instead of compensatory, portions of the judgment entered against the Uzans.
The discretionary relief available under Rule 60(b) is equitable. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) ( ); 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.22[5] (3d ed. 2008) () (collecting cases); 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2857, at 255 (2d ed. 1995) (). The record before us—and the record described in the ten published decisions predating this opinion, of which we take judicial notice, see, e.g., New York v. Operation Rescue Nat'l, 273 F.3d 184, 198 (2d Cir.2001) ( )—demonstrate that the Uzans have not acted equitably because they have not pursued their defense with "clean hands," Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814, 65 S.Ct. 993, 89 L.Ed. 1381 (1945) ( ). See generally Shondel v. McDermott, 775 F.2d 859, 867-68 (7th Cir.1985) (Posner, J.) ( ).3
Relying on their vast personal wealth, the Uzans have time and again deployed their lawyers to raise legal roadblocks to the enforcement of the judgment against them. They have persistently endeavored to evade the lawful jurisdiction of the District Court and undermine its careful and determined work. See, e.g., Motorola Credit Corp., 2009 WL 819041, at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27377, at *11 (); Uzan IX, 413 F.Supp.2d at 350 (); Uzan III, 274 F.Supp.2d at 491 () ; id. at 494 () .4 As counsel confirmed at oral argument, the Uzans remain in contempt of court for failure to comply with the District Court's orders that they transfer stock holdings to the Court's registry, and they remain subject to arrest should they set foot in the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio Inc. D/B/A Thalassa Rest.
... ... Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In ... Defendants contend, however, that they are entitled to take a tip credit for plaintiffs' employment. 29 U.S.C. 203(m) provides that: In ... Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir.2009). [W]here two causes ... ...
-
Don Lia v. Saporito
... ... Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ... Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. at 814, 65 S.Ct. 993; see also Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 12829 (2d Cir.2009). Thus, if ... ...
-
Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Pyle
... ... it," on which he would receive a "Consultant" or "CoProducer" credit; Pyle also contracted to narrate the Film, make a cameo appearance in the ... Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. , 196 F.3d 409, 432 n.10 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Torres ... , however improper may have been the behavior of the defendant." Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan , 561 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting ... ...
-
Marcus v. Lominy
...faith where the misconduct has a material relation to the equitable relief that plaintiff seeks.” (citing Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009); Specialty Minerals, Inc. v. Pluess-Staufer AG, 395 F.Supp.2d 109, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). Notably, the record contains evidence......
-
The Children of Baby M.
...having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.‖ Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 128 n.5 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting LEO ROSTEN, THE JOYS OF YIDDISH 92 (1968)). 368 Simmons v. Comer, 438 S.E.2d 530, 540 n.15 (W.Va. 1993) (quoti......
-
Equity as Meta-Law.
..."classic definition" and contemporary variations where a party's conduct is especially and brazenly faulty. Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 561 F.3d 123, 128 n.5 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Examples of chutzpah include a former state senator who was serving a sentence for selling sto......