Signal Hill, N.V. v. Altmann

• Decision Date: 20 September 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-7200,96-7200
• Citation: 1996 WL 537916,104 F.3d 350
• Parties: NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23. SIGNAL HILL, N.V.; Momiller Investments, N.V., Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. Cecil ALTMANN, Defendant-Appellant, Stephen SCHECHTER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 350

104 F.3d 350

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.

SIGNAL HILL, N.V.; Momiller Investments, N.V., Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. Cecil ALTMANN, Defendant-Appellant Stephen SCHECHTER, Defendant.

No. 96-7200.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 20, 1996.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: David I. Faust, Faust, Rabbach, Stanger & Oppenheim, New York, New York.

APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: Kevin J. Walsh, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New York, New York.

Before WINTER, LEVAL and CABRANES, Circuit Judges,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, Chief Judge ).

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was argued.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Defendant Cecil Altmann appeals from a default judgment against him awarding $943,770 in compensatory damages and $500,000 punitive damages, plus prejudgment interest.

Signal Hill, N.V. and Momiller Investments, N.V. began this action in June 1991, alleging that Altmann fraudulently induced plaintiffs to buy worthless stock options. In December 1993, Chief Judge Griesa entered a default against Altmann, who had never answered the complaint or appeared. In July 1994, plaintiffs moved for an award of specific money damages. A month later, Altmann moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or to vacate the default. In September 1994, Chief Judge Griesa denied Altmann's motions and awarded compensatory damages to plaintiffs. In January 1996, after an inquest, punitive damages were awarded. The district court then entered judgments for the compensatory and the punitive damages.

On appeal Altmann challenges the district court's personal jurisdiction and raises various arguments that the default should have been vacated and that damages were improper. A central dispute underlying both the question of personal jurisdiction and the propriety of the default was whether Altmann had been effectively served in August 1991 in Geneva, Switzerland, where both parties averred that he resided. We do not reach these arguments, however, because it emerged at oral...