Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. et al v. Bridge et al

Filing 912

MOTION by Defendants Kirk Allison, Vinaya Jessani, MD Sass Investors Services, Inc., MD Sass Municipal Finance Partners-IV, LLC, MD Sass Municipal Finance Partners-V, LLC, MD Sass Tax Lien Management, LLC, Movants SASS Muni-IV LLC, SASS Muni-V, LLC for judgment [Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively, For a New Trial (Rotert, Mark)

IN THE UNITD STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY CO. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN BRIDGE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 05 C 4095
Consolidated with No. 07 C 1367
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

THE SASS DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A NEW TRIAL
The Sass Defendants1 respectfully move that this Court enter judgment in their favor as a
matter of law on Counts One, Two and Seven of the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, or, in
the alternative, that this Court grant them a new trial. F.R. Civ. P., Rules 50(b) and 59.
The Sass Defendants assert that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
Counts One and Two because the plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence at trial sufficient to satisfy
all the essential elements of those claims. Specifically, plaintiffs failed to show that mail fraud
predicate offenses occurred; they failed to show that the Sass Defendants conducted or
participated in the conduct of an enterprise; they failed to establish that the Sass Defendants
engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and they failed to show the requisite causation. In
addition, plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to establish the specific intent required to impose
liability on the Sass Defendants, who were accused of disregarding a rule of uncertain terms and
uneven application. For these reasons, the Sass Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law on Counts One and Two.

1
Defendants Sass Muni-IV, LLC; Sass Muni-V, LLC; MD Sass Investors Services, Inc.; MD Sass Tax
Lien Management LLC; MD Sass Municipal Finance Partners-IV, LLC; MD Sass Municipal Finance
Partners-V, LLC; Vinaya Jessani and Kirk Allison are referred to collectively herein as the “Sass
Defendants” for convenience.
1 

The Sass Defendants further assert that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary
elements of the alleged tort set forth at Count Seven, tortious interference with a business
opportunity. The Sass Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law for Count Seven.
The Sass Defendants further assert that the jury instructions issued in this case were
incomplete in a manner that unfairly prejudiced the Sass Defendants, such that they are entitled
to a new trial.
The Sass Defendants also assert that the punitive damages awarded by the jury verdicts in
this case should not stand because there was no showing at trial that the Sass Defendants’
conduct warranted the imposition of such punitive sanctions.
The Sass Defendants also assert that any damages awarded by this Court must be
fashioned to prevent duplicate or windfall recoveries by the plaintiffs. To assure that such
duplicate recoveries do not occur, damages must be set off against amounts previously recovered
by plaintiffs from other defendants or putative defendants who allegedly inflicted the same
injuries through the same course of conduct. Further, punitive damages may not be imposed
where compensatory damages already have been trebled.
The Sass Defendants explain further why these outcomes are required in their
“Memorandum of Law In Support Of Their Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law
Or, Alternatively, For A New Trial,” which is filed contemporaneously with this Motion.
Further support for the Sass Defendants’ position on the proper calculation of damages is
contained within the Joint Status Report filed by the parties on December 13, 2011.

2 

WHEREFORE, the Sass Defendants respectfully move for the entry of judgment in their
favor or, alternatively, for the grant of a new trial.
Respectfully submitted,
The Sass Defendants

By: /s/ Mark L. Rotert
Counsel for the Sass Defendants
STETLER, DUFFY & ROTERT, LTD.
10 S. La Salle, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60603
[phone]
[e-mail]

3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark L. Rotert, an attorney, hereby certify that, I caused a copy of the foregoing The
Sass Defendants’ Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Or, Alternatively, For
A New Trial to be filed and served via the Court’s CM/ECF System on this 13th day of
December, 2011.

/s/ Mark L. Rotert

4