Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

plaintiffdefendantlitigationtrialmotioncorporation
plaintiffdefendanttrialmotioncorporation

Related Cases

Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 529 A.2d 171
View Case »
In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Rochon, 686 F.Supp. 195
View Case »
Manganella v. Keyes, 613 F.Supp. 795
View Case »
Troice v. Proskauer Rose, L.L.P., 816 F.3d 341
View Case »
South Carolina Nat. Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D. 325, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,228
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Quintel Corp. v. Citibank, N.A., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1983 WL 2157

Facts

The case originated from a complaint filed by Quintel Corporation against Citibank for securities law violations related to a real estate investment. Citibank then filed a third-party claim against Alperstein for contribution, leading to Alperstein's motion to assert claims against Flag Associates and Citibank. The litigation has been ongoing since 1980, with various claims and consolidations complicating the proceedings.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Quintel Corporation against Citibank for securities law violations related to a real estate investment. Citibank then filed a third-party claim against Alperstein for contribution, leading to Alperstein's motion to assert claims against Flag Associates and Citibank.

Issue

Whether Alperstein could assert third-party claims against Flag Associates and Citibank, and whether the court should allow these claims given the procedural rules and the imminent trial date.

Whether Alperstein could assert third-party claims against Flag Associates and Citibank, and whether the court should allow these claims given the procedural rules and the imminent trial date.

Rule

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a), a defending party may serve a third-party complaint against a person not a party to the action who may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, under S.D.N.Y.Civ.R. 3(k), a third-party complaint must be filed within six months of the moving party's answer, unless special circumstances justify a later filing.

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a), a defending party may serve a third-party complaint against a person not a party to the action who may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. Additionally, under S.D.N.Y.Civ.R. 3(k), a third-party complaint must be filed within six months of the moving party's answer, unless special circumstances justify a later filing.

Analysis

The court analyzed the factors for allowing an exception to the six-month rule, including potential prejudice to the proposed third-party defendants and the complexity of the trial. It concluded that the imminent trial did not constitute sufficient prejudice to deny the amendment, especially since Conboy was familiar with the case. The court also noted that Alperstein's claims against Citibank were permissible as they did not unduly complicate the proceedings.

The court analyzed the factors for allowing an exception to the six-month rule, including potential prejudice to the proposed third-party defendants and the complexity of the trial. It concluded that the imminent trial did not constitute sufficient prejudice to deny the amendment, especially since Conboy was familiar with the case.

Conclusion

The court granted Alperstein's motion to assert claims against Citibank and Conboy, while denying the claims against Flag Associates. This decision was made to ensure a consistent resolution of the complex issues in the case.

The court granted Alperstein's motion to assert claims against Citibank and Conboy, while denying the claims against Flag Associates. This decision was made to ensure a consistent resolution of the complex issues in the case.

Who won?

Alperstein prevailed in asserting claims against Citibank and Conboy because the court found that allowing these claims was necessary for a comprehensive resolution of the case.

Alperstein prevailed in asserting claims against Citibank and Conboy because the court found that allowing these claims was necessary for a comprehensive resolution of the case.

You must be