Robertson v. Cartinhour
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126030 (2011)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Wade Robertson (plaintiff) and William Cartinhour (defendant) formed a partnership for the purpose of bringing securities class action lawsuits. Both invested substantial amounts of money into the venture. Robertson was in charge of bringing the suits. Cartinhour executed an indemnity agreement giving Robertson certain rights. After Robertson failed to succeed with an appropriate suit despite investing considerable sums of the partnership’s money, Cartinhour demanded that his investment be returned and threatened to sue. Robertson responded by filing an action for breach of the indemnity agreement against Cartinhour in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Court). Robertson’s suit also named as defendants other attorneys alleged to have cooperated with Cartinhour and certain Serbian individuals. Cartinhour counterclaimed. The matter went to trial and the jury issued a verdict in favor of Cartinhour. At some point after the filing of the D.C. action, Robertson filed a second suit against Cartinhour and some of the same defendants from the D.C. matter (defendants) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The New York suit arose from the same events as the D.C. suit but it alleged fraud, defamation, tortious interference with contract, and other claims. The New York defendants moved to transfer the matter to the D.C. Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Swain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.