Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Olagues v. Steinour

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

May 29, 2018

JOHN A. OLAGUES, Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN D. STEINOUR, et al. Defendants.

          Deavers Magistrate Judge.

          OPINION & ORDER

          ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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).

         The 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.).

         II. STANDARD

         Rule 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.