Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis Incorporated v. Malon S. Andrus, Inc.

Decision Date25 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79 Civ. 5969.,79 Civ. 5969.
PartiesPAINE, WEBBER, JACKSON & CURTIS INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. MALON S. ANDRUS, INC., Malon S. Andrus, Helen S. Andrus, John J. Von Barta III, Piwacket Corp., William H. Harty, Clarise B. Harty and Mary Brooks, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Beekman & Bogue by Martin P. Unger, Carlton R. Asher, Jr., New York City, for plaintiff.

Walsh & Levine, New York City, for Andrus defendants.

Rogers, Hoge & Hills by Richard J. Schulman, New York City, for defendant Von Barta.

Harold Holtman, Huntington, N. Y., for defendants Harty and Brooks.



Plaintiff commenced this action against John J. Von Barta III ("Von Barta") and seven other defendants charging them with various fraudulent acts in transactions involving United States Government bonds to plaintiff's damage in excess of $400,000.

Several days prior to the commencement of this action a fifteen-count indictment was filed in this Court charging Von Barta with violations of the mail and wire fraud statutes and conspiracy to commit those crimes in connection with United States Government bonds, the alleged victims being parties other than the plaintiff herein. Von Barta on this motion contends that a reference in the indictment to "other" victims may include the plaintiff.

Von Barta, based upon an affidavit of his attorney in the criminal prosecution, moves to stay this civil action, including any deposition or other discovery process of him until the termination of his criminal prosecution. A motion to dismiss the indictment is sub judice and in the event of its denial a trial is anticipated in April 1980. In support of the stay it is urged (1) that he and his attorneys are all absorbed in the investigation and preparation of his defense to the criminal case and he has committed his limited financial resources to that end and to divert his energies to the civil suit would jeopardize trial preparation in the criminal matter and his ability to defend himself; (2) that were he to be questioned in the deposition or discovery process in this action it would result in his lawyers advising him to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege.

It is noted that Von Barta is represented in this action by separate and independent counsel from those who are defending him in the criminal prosecution. No reason has been advanced why these lawyers cannot devote themselves to matters involved in this suit while those who represent him in the criminal matter take care of his interests in that proceeding. Moreover, since his attorneys contend that the same general scheme to defraud is the nub of the civil complaint in this action and of the indictment, preparation for one trial is preparation for the other.

Plaintiff here alleges that as a result of the fraudulent scheme it has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • King v. Olympic Pipeline Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 2000
    ...889 F.2d at 902-03. 12. We have located two cases discussing partial discovery stays. In Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis Inc. v. Malon S. Andrus, Inc., 486 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (S.D.N.Y.1980), the federal district court regarded the limited nature of the request as a disincentive to stay proc......
  • Kamakazi Corp. v. Robbins Music Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 29, 1982
    ...Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Malon S. Andrus, Inc., 486 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (S.D.N.Y.1980); Kaufman v. Jeffords, 268 F.Supp. 784, 785 (S.D.N.Y.1967). The actions by Warner and Manilow had bee......
  • Aspen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • December 6, 2012 become a constant source of delay and an interference with judicial administration.” Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Malon S. Andrus, Inc., 486 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (S.D.N.Y.1980). Furthermore, the district court's interest in expeditiously resolving lawsuits is intensified in com......
  • Sterling Nat. Bank v. A-1 Hotels Intern., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 4, 2001
    ...advancing its claims." Citibank, N.A. v. Hakim, No. 92 Civ. 6233(MBM), 1993 WL 481335, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 1993) (quoting Paine, Webber, 486 F.Supp. at 1119). Second, it is equally well understood that such a stay is not constitutionally required whenever a litigant finds himself facin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT