Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitattorneyaffidavitmotiondue process

attorneyaffidavitmotion

Related Cases

Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 48 F.3d 1320, 30 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1165

Facts

George Hadges, a licensed harness race horse trainer, had his license suspended and revoked multiple times due to undisclosed criminal history and illegal activities related to wagering. After being relicensed, he was denied the right to work at Yonkers Raceway, leading him to file a lawsuit claiming a violation of his due process rights. The court previously ruled against him, and Hadges sought to set aside that judgment, alleging fraud based on an affidavit from Yonkers Racing Corp. that he could race at other tracks despite the ban.

George Hadges, a licensed harness race horse trainer, had his license suspended and revoked multiple times due to undisclosed criminal history and illegal activities related to wagering.

Issue

Did the affidavit submitted by Yonkers Racing Corp. constitute fraud on the court, and were the Rule 11 sanctions against Hadges and his attorney warranted?

Rule

Fraud upon the court is limited to fraud that seriously affects the integrity of the normal process of adjudication, and Rule 11 requires that representations to the court be supported by adequate inquiry and evidentiary support.

Analysis

The court found that Hadges's claims of fraud were not substantiated, as the affidavit in question did not materially affect the court's earlier decision. The court also noted that Hadges had raced at other tracks, contradicting his claims of being barred from all racing opportunities. The imposition of sanctions was deemed inappropriate due to procedural errors by the opposing party in requesting sanctions.

The court found that Hadges's claims of fraud were not substantiated, as the affidavit in question did not materially affect the court's earlier decision.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the denial of Hadges's motion to set aside the judgment but reversed the Rule 11 sanctions imposed on him and his attorney.

Who won?

Yonkers Racing Corp. prevailed in the case as the court upheld the previous judgment against Hadges and found no fraud on the court.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,568, 41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1073

Santacroce v. Neff, 134 F.Supp.2d 366

Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v. Glantz, 53 N.Y.2d 553, 428 N.E.2d 387, 444 N.Y.S.2d 55

Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 56 USLW 2029, 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 273

Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corp. v. Norwest Bank of Jamestown, N.W., 854 F.2d 1122