Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 82 Civ. 3757 (RWS).,82 Civ. 3757 (RWS). |
| Citation | 620 F. Supp. 76 |
| Parties | Elfriede MAYER, Plaintiff, v. OIL FIELD SYSTEMS CORP., Integrated Energy, Inc., Burton Joel Ahrens and "John Doe", fictitious, the true name or names of such defendants being presently unknown to the plaintiff, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Elfriede Mayer ("Mayer") has moved for reconsideration of the June 11, 1985, 611 F.Supp. 635, opinion of the court which dismissed this action. For the following reasons, Mayer's motion will be denied.
Mayer contends that the June 11 opinion was mistaken in finding that the allegedly fraudulent transaction was consummated on October 15, 1981, three days after Mayer had concededly obtained knowledge of the facts which allegedly were concealed by the defendants. Mayer asserts, however, that the relevant date for the closing of the transaction is September 22, 1981 at which time Oil Field Systems, Inc. ("OFS") submitted its Reconfirmation of Acceptance to the Exchange Agent and thereby committed the limited partnerships to be bound by the transaction. In Mayer's view, this reconfirmation "fixed the liability for the misconduct of defendants long before the conversation of October 12, 1982 took place."
Mayer's statement of the facts underlying her claim confirms rather than rebuts the conclusion reached in the June 11 opinion. As viewed by the Court of Appeals, the limited partners' 10b-5 action is premised on evidence of deception which prevented the limited partners from invoking state court remedies to prevent consummation of a fraudulent transaction. The reconfirmation letter of September 22, 1981 which irrevocably committed OFS to the transaction did not foreclose Mayer's opportunity to seek a state remedy in 1981 but rather gave rise to such a cause of action. Such state remedies did not become unavailable until the closing of the transaction which could not have occurred before the October 15 cutoff date for reconfirmations of acceptances and did not actually occur until November 10, 1981. Since Mayer concedes that full disclosure occurred on October 12, 1981, she has not presented a claim under the federal securities laws.
Mayer argues that notwithstanding the dismissal of her federal claims, the Court should retain the state law claims through the exercise of pendent jurisdiction. The exercise of pendent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v. Visiting Nurse Services of N.Y.
...VII claims and declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law discrimination claims) (citing Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp., 620 F.Supp. 76, 77-78 (S.D.N.Y.1985)); see, e.g., Henkin v. Forest Lab., Inc., No. 01 Civ. 4255(AKH), 2003 WL 749236, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 200......
-
Bohmer v. New York
...filed, within six months of dismissal without regards to the statute of limitations. See N.Y. CPLR § 205; Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp., 620 F.Supp. 76, 77 (S.D.N.Y.1985). IV. The Court dismisses all claims against New York State, NYSP, and the State defendants sued in their official cap......
-
Trinidad v. New York City Dept. of Correction
...litigation and well in advance of trial, so economy would not be greatly served by retaining jurisdiction."); Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp., 620 F.Supp. 76, 77-78 (S.D.N.Y.1985) ("The exercise of pendent jurisdiction in [a] case where the federal claims have been dismissed on summary jud......
-
Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.
...or withheld. Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp., 611 F.Supp. 635 (S.D.N.Y.1985) ("Mayer III" ); see also Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp., 620 F.Supp. 76 (S.D.N.Y.1985) ("Mayer IV" ) (denying On appeal now from the final judgment entered following Mayer III and Mayer IV, Mayer contends that t......