U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Reisinger et al
Filing
200
MOTION by Defendant Grace Elizabeth Reisinger for judgment As A Matter Of Law Or Alternatively For A New Trial (Renewed) (Nissen, William)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission,
Plaintiff,
v.
Grace Elizabeth Reisinger and
ROF Consulting, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
) No. 11 C 8567
)
) Judge Joan B. Gottschall
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANT REISINGER’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
OF LAW OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to Rules 50 and 59, Fed. R. Civ. P., Defendant Reisinger hereby renews her
motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, and moves in the alternative
for a new trial as follows:
1.
Judgment should be entered in favor of defendant against plaintiff as a matter of
law on Counts 3 through 6 because a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find that defendant Reisinger satisfied the legal definition of commodity pool
operator (“CPO”) for the NCCN commodity pool.
2.
Judgment should be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiff as a matter
of law on Counts 1 through 3 because a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
evidentiary basis to find that defendant Reisinger made any material misrepresentations or
omissions to any participant in the NCCN commodity pool.
3.
Judgment should be entered as a matter of law in favor of defendant and against
plaintiff on plaintiff’s claim that defendant is liable on Counts 1 through 6 for violations of ROF
Consulting, LLC (“ROF”) as a controlling person, because a reasonable jury would not have a
legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find that Reisinger was a controlling person of ROF.
4.
Alternatively, a new trial should be granted for the following reasons:
a.
Defendant Reisinger did not receive a fair trial because the Court erred in
permitting evidence of the disposition of remaining pool funds by
Reisinger after the time period covered by the complaint in this action.
This evidence was not relevant to the issues raised by the complaint and
was highly prejudicial to Reisinger.
b.
Defendant Reisinger did not receive a fair trial because the Court erred in
not requiring plaintiff to prove violations by ROF as a predicate for
controlling person liability.
c.
The verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
WHEREFORE, defendant Reisinger prays for an order entering judgment in favor of
defendant as a matter of law, or alternatively an order granting a new trial, and such other and
further relief as may be just and proper.
2
Date: October 11, 2016
s/ William J. Nissen
William Nissen
Angelo J. Suozzi
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
p: (312) 853-7742
f: (312) 853-7036
wnissen@sidley.com
asuozzi@sidley.com
Attorneys For Defendant
Grace Elizabeth Reisinger
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William J. Nissen, an attorney, hereby certify that I have served copies of the
foregoing Defendant Reisinger’s Renewed Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Or
Alternatively for New Trial upon the following individuals by the Court’s ECF system on the
11th day of October, 2016.
Timothy J. Mulreany
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Division of Enforcement
Three Lafayette Center
1155 21st Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20581
tmulreany@cftc.gov
Elizabeth N. Pendleton
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Division of Enforcement
525 West Monroe Street
Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60661
ependleton@cftc.gov
s/ William J. Nissen
William J. Nissen
ACTIVE 217290138v.2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?