United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
JOHN A. OLAGUES, Plaintiff,
STEPHEN D. STEINOUR, et al. Defendants.
Deavers Magistrate Judge.
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
John A. Olagues, who is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, filed a Motion for Relief under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to amend judgment of the Opinion and
Order (ECF No. 28) in which the Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Procedurally Improper
Complaint. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's
Motion is DENIED.
filed a claim against Huntington Bancshares Inc.
(“Huntington”) and Defendant Stephen Steinour,
the President and CEO of Huntington. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
alleged that a series of stock transactions conducted by
Defendants from 2014 to 2016 violated Section 16(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which requires company
insiders to disgorge any profits earned through short-swing
trading. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4, 9).
Court granted Defendants' Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Procedurally Improper Complaint and directed
Plaintiff to hire counsel and to file an Amended Complaint
within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 27). The Court held that
Plaintiff cannot proceed pro se because the suit he
filed was on behalf of Huntington and Plaintiff's claim
implicated interests apart from his own. (Id. at 4).
In the Complaint, Plaintiff argued that the suit is a private
right of action under Section 16(b), as opposed to a
representative or derivative action on behalf of
shareholders. (Id.). While the Court agreed that
Plaintiff is not acting on behalf of shareholders of
Huntington, the Court found that Plaintiff is still acting on
behalf of Huntington as a whole and therefore cannot proceed
pro se. (Id.).
60(b) sets out six reasons for which the Court is authorized
to grant relief:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgement has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it ...