Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 822 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-06-29
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Plaintiff pro se John P. Cahill appeals from a December 22, 1986 judgment en*15tered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“1986 Judgment”), Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Judge, (1) summarily dismissing his complaint against defendant Arthur Andersen & Company (“Andersen”), which alleged that Andersen had conspired with others in violation of, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1982), and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982), to force Cahill to sell his interest in Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc., and (2) denying his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the judgment in Cahill v. Chambers, 82 Civ. 6327 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1983) (“1983 Judgment”), which had been entered pursuant to an agreement among all of the parties therein, who did not include Andersen, to settle Cahill’s similar claims against the defendants therein.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Cahill v. Arthur Andersen & Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
CAHILL, v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN COMPANY,822 F.2d 14(2nd Cir. 1987)
JOHN P. CAHILL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN COMPANY, A
PARTNERSHIP ENTERPRISE, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
JOHN P. CAHILL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT., v. ROBERT CHAMBERS, J. KEVIN MURPHY,
JOSEPH F. CARLINO, JAMES E. HEALEY, MARC C. GILLEN AND JOHN DOES 1-5,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 1029, Docket 87-7059.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 28, 1987.
Decided June 29, 1987.
John P. Cahill, New York City, pro se.

Bertrand C. Sellier, New York City (Sidney H. Stein, Stein, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer Sharp, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Arthur Andersen Co.

Daniel G. Gurfein, New York City (James F. Rittinger, David G. Curran, Satterlee Stephens, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Chambers.

Julian Jawitz, Mineola, N.Y. (Carlino, Lefkowitz, Bornes Bolstad, P.C., Mineola, N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees Murphy, Carlino, Haley and Gillen.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Plaintiffpro seJohn P. Cahill appeals from a December 22, 1986 judgment enteredPage 15in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("1986 Judgment"), Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum,Judge,(1) summarily dismissing his complaint against defendant Arthur Andersen Company ("Andersen"), which alleged that Anderson had conspired with others in violation of,inter alia,the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,18 U.S.C. § 1961et seq.(1982), and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982), to force Cahill to sell his interest in Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc., and (2) denying his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the judgment inCahill v.Chambers,82 Civ. 6327 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1983) ("1983 Judgment"), which had been entered pursuant to an agreement among all of the parties therein, who did not include Andersen, to settle Cahill's similar claims against the defendants therein. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief from the 1983 Judgment, and we affirm the 1986 Judgment on the ground that the 1983 Judgment constituted as judicata for the reasons stated by Judge Cedarbaum in her opinion dated December 17, 1986, published at 659 F.Supp. 1115.Page 205