Teltronics Services, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc., 79-4513.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-4513.,79-4513. |
| Citation | 491 F. Supp. 538 |
| Parties | TELTRONICS SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. L M ERICSSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman, Robert G. Levy, Berryl A. Speert, Allan P. Hillman, Jacob Silverman, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff; Lorenz, Finn, Giardino & Lambos, New York City, of counsel.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for defendant; Robert M. Osgood, Richard G. Lyon, Robinson B. Lacy, New York City, of counsel.
L M Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc. (Ericsson) moves for "reconsideration," or alternatively for certification for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of an order dated March 28, 1980, reported at 486 F.Supp. 836, denying its motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata. In that opinion, although the dismissal of an earlier complaint brought by Teltronics Services Inc. (Teltronics) against Ericsson, its subsidiary, its parent, and Nordic American Banking Corporation alleging securities and antitrust law violations was held to be "on the merits" within Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and consequently technically applied to bar the present action, the circumstances of this case were held to warrant the exercise of the equitable power of the court to decline mechanically to apply res judicata to bar this action.
In support of its motion for "reconsideration" which will be treated as one for reargument, see United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York General Rule 9(m), Ericsson argues, as it did on the earlier motion, that the "express language" of Rule 41 mandates dismissal of this action. However, the motion was not denied because the language of Rule 41 was inapplicable, but because of the equitable considerations noted.
Ericsson now presents the additional argument that the recent decision in In re Teltronics Services, Inc., No. 79B2725 (E.D. N.Y. April 30, 1980), in which the bankruptcy judge dismissed Teltronics' Chapter XI proceeding and adjudicated it bankrupt, is relevant to the decision on the motion to dismiss in the case at hand. One of the reasons for earlier refusing to dismiss the complaint was the apparent good faith of Teltronics. Among the findings of the bankruptcy court, however, were that Teltronics had failed to file a complete list of creditors and schedules of its operations, assets, liabilities and executory contracts, in violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teltronics Services, Inc. v. Anaconda-Ericsson, Inc.
...mechanically in an order published at 486 F.Supp. 836 (S.D. N.Y.1980). On reconsideration, Judge Lasker changed his mind. 491 F.Supp. 538 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 642 F.2d 31 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 978, 101 S.Ct. 1511, 67 L.Ed.2d 813 Armed with yet a third set of counsel and relyin......
-
Matter of Lincoln Plaza Towers Associates
...Ill. Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 333 334, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1445, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971). See also Teltronics Services, Inc. v. L.M. Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc., 491 F.Supp. 538, 539 (S.D.N.Y.1980). 22 The instant dismissal motion, which necessarily addresses itself to the present Chapter 1......
-
Teltronics Services, Inc., In re
...705 (E.D.N.Y.1982); Teltronics Services, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc., 486 F.Supp. 836 (S.D.N.Y.), on reargument, 491 F.Supp. 538 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd, 642 F.2d 31 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 960, 101 S.Ct. 3108, 69 L.Ed.2d 971 (1981); Teltronics Services, Inc. v. LM ......
-
Teltronics Services, Inc. v. L M Ericsson Telecommunications, Inc.
...payments were to be made to Ericsson. On March 8, 1979 Teltronics filed its first complaint in the Southern District Court of New York, 491 F.Supp. 538 against Ericsson, LME and Nordic in four counts. The first two counts alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ......