Korwek v. Hunt

Citation649 F. Supp. 1547
Decision Date30 December 1986
Docket NumberNo. 84 Civ. 7934 (MEL).,84 Civ. 7934 (MEL).
PartiesPhilip KORWEK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Nelson Bunker HUNT, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Deutsch & Frey, New York City, for plaintiffs; Herbert I. Deutsch, Robert E. Frey, Richard L. Weingarten, Neil Sussman (Law Clerk), of counsel.

Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, Washington, D.C. and New York City for Intern. Metals Inv. Co. Ltd.; Paul L. Perito, John P. Wintrol, Robert E. Pokusa, Washington, D.C., and Jerome Kowalski, New York City, of counsel.

Sidley & Austin, New York City, for Continental Grain Co.; Marc J. Gottridge, of counsel.

Parker, Auspitz, Neeseman & Delehanty, P.C., New York City, for Walter Goldschmidt; Jack C. Auspitz, of counsel.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for ContiCommodity Services Inc. and Conti-Capital, Ltd.; Mark A. Alcott, Richard A. Rosen, of counsel.

John R. Bartels, Jr., New York City and Shank, Irwin & Conant, Dallas, Tex., for Nelson Bunker Hunt, William Herbert Hunt and Lamar Hunt; Roger Goldburg, Roderic G. Steakley, Robert E. Wolin, of counsel.

Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for Bache Group Inc. and Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.; Marvin Schwartz, Richard H. Klapper, Marcy Engel, of counsel.

Rogers & Wells, New York City for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette Commodity Futures, Inc.; William R. Glendon, Guy C. Quinlan, Susan A. Garcia, of counsel.

Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, for Norton Waltuch; Steven J. Glassman, of counsel.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York City, for Mel Schnell; Erskine Henderson, of counsel.

LASKER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move pursuant to Civil Rule 3(j) of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York to reargue the recent decision in this case, see Korwek v. Hunt, 646 F.Supp. 953 (S.D.N.Y.1986), dismissing many of the individual and class claims asserted in the amended complaint as time-barred. The motion is denied.

Plaintiffs direct their motion to two aspects of the recent opinion. First, they contend that the federal and state antitrust claims asserted in the complaint, all of which are governed by a four-year statute of limitations, were timely filed and thus should not have been dismissed. They argue that the motion to intervene and expand the class in Gordon v. Hunt, No. 82-1318 (MEL) (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed by four of the five named plaintiffs on October 19, 1983—well within the four-year limitations period—should be regarded as the commencement of the Korwek action for purposes of determining whether this action is barred by the statute of limitations. Second, plaintiffs contend that the conclusion that the doctrine of equitable tolling (based on the alleged fraudulent concealment by defendants Continental Grain Co. and Walter M. Goldschmidt of their wrongful actions) is not applicable in this case is unsupported by the record.

Defendants respond that plaintiffs have failed to point out factual matters or controlling decisions which the court has overlooked —a prerequisite for granting a Rule 3(j) motion. Defendants also contend that the legal authority cited by plaintiffs in support of their renewed class action tolling argument is not applicable to the case at hand, since the decisions upon which plaintiffs rely all involved motions to intervene which were granted, not denied as in this case. See, e.g., Braxton v. Virginia Folding Box Co., 72 F.R.D. 124, 126 (E.D. Va.1976); Farris v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 415 F.Supp. 594 (W.D.Ky.1976); DiCostanzo v. Chrysler Corp., 71 F.R.D. 223 (D.Mass.1976); Jack v. Travelers Insurance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • German By German v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 22 Agosto 1995
    ...to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir. 1987). As such, a party in its motion for reargument "may not advance new facts, issues or arg......
  • In re Integrated Resources Real Estate
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 4 Abril 1994
    ...to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment. See Morser, 715 F.Supp. at 517; Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). As such, a party in its motion for reargument "may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presented to ......
  • New York v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 9 Marzo 2009
    ...for an appeal from a final judgment. See Morser v. A.T. & T. Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Accordingly, a party in its motion for reconsideration "may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presente......
  • Goldberg v. UBS AG
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 5 Marzo 2010
    ...for an appeal from a final judgment. See Morser v. A.T. & T. Info. Sys., 715 F.Supp. 516, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1989); Korwek v. Hunt, 649 F.Supp. 1547, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Accordingly, a party in its motion for reconsideration "may not advance new facts, issues or arguments not previously presente......
  • 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