09-0479 -cv

L as ker v . UBS S e cs . LL C UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT AM ENDED SUM M ARY OR DER RUL I N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFEC T. CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1 , 20 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A BR I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WH I C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y O R D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N WH I C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ONE CI T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R B E T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T R EPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT P AYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: // W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO C O PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE CI T AT I ON M U ST I N C LUD E RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 23 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and ni ne. rd P RES ENT : RALP H K. W I NTE R,

R E E N A R A G G I, DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i rcui tJud

ges.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - HOW ARD LAS KER, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 0479- cv UB S S ECU RI TI ES LL C, UB S LOA N FI NA NC E LL C, D ef end an t s-App el l ees.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L A N T : DAVI D C
. KAT Z , We i s s & L u r i e ( J o s e p h H. W ei s s , W ei s s & L ur i e, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k,T he compl ai nt al s o demanded s peci fi c per form ance of the pr opos ed mer gerbetw een 1 G enes co and Fr ontL i ne, I nc. , nami ng Fr ontL i ne as defe ndanti n a cl ai m ed br eac h of the M e rg e r A g re e m e n t. L as kerfi l ed the ac t i on i n N ew Y or k Supr eme C our t , K i ngs C ounty . U B S r emoved 2 the ac t i on t o the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k. 2 Ju les B ro d y , P a trick K . S lyn e , S tu ll, S tu ll & B ro d y , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , on the br i ef ) , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. AP P E AR I NG F OR AP P E L L E E S : J OSEPH J
. FRAN K, La t ham & W a t k i n s LLP (E ri c S. O l ney , L atham & W atki ns L L P, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, J
. Scot tB al l enger , J
. C hr i s t i an W or d, L atham & W atki ns L L P, W ashin gt on, D .C ., on the br i ef

) , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.
A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E aste rn D is tr ict o f N ew Y o rk (C h a rl e s P . S if

to n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourt ent er ed on J anuary 9, 2009, i s AF F I RMED
. P lain tiff H o w a rd L a sk e r, o n b e h a lf o f h im se lf a n d a p u tativ e c las s o f

sh a re h o ld e rs in Gen e s c o , I n c . , s u e d d e f e n dant s U B S S e c u r i t i e s LLC a n d UB S Lo a n Fi n a n c e LLC ( co ll ect i vel y , “U B S”) i n T ennes s ee ChanceryC our tforpr ocur ementof br eac h of contr act (th e “ T e n n e ss e e a c tio n ” ). T h e c a se w a s d ism iss e d . T w o m o n th s la ter , L a sk e r su e d U B S in 1 N ew Y or k, al l egi ng t or t i ous i nt er fer ence w i th a bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p underT ennes s ee l aw

2 ( the “N ew Y or k act i on”)
. L as ker her e appea l s the di s m i s s al of the N ew Y or k act i on pur s uant t o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( c) , a rul i ng w e r evi ew de novo, acc ept i ng al l fac tual al l egat i ons i n t he3

compl ai ntas true and dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n L as ker ’ s favor
. See Johns on v. R o w ley, 5 6 9 F .3 d 4 0 , 4 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 )
. L a s k e r a r g u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in concl udi n g tha thi s t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl ai m w as barr ed byr es j udi cat a. Forthe r eas ons set fo rth b elo w , w e d isa g ree . W e a ssu m e the p arti es’ f am il iari tyw ith the f

ac ts an d rec o rd

o f p r i o rp r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we r e f e r e n c e o n l y a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. C hoi ce of

L aw A fede r al courtm us tgi ve a pr i ors t at e- courtj udgm ent“the s ame pr ecl us i ve ef fec tas
w oul d be gi ven thatj udgm entunderthe l aw of the St at e i n w hi ch the j udg m entw as rendered. ” M i gra v. W arr en C i ty S ch. D i st
. B d. of E du c. , 46 5 U
. S
. 75 , 81 (1984 ); see al so 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 7 3 8
. A c c o rd in g ly , T e n n e ss e e law g o v e rn s o u r an a ly sis o f U B S ’s r e s ju d ica ta d e f e n s e . 2
. R e s J u d ica ta T e n n e ss e e v iew s re s ju d ica ta a s a c laim p re c lu sio n d o c trin e th a t “r e q u ire s p a rties to

r ai s e i n a s i ngl e l aw s ui tal l the gr ounds forr ecove ryar i s i ng fr om a s i ngl e tr ans act i on ors er i es
o f tra n sa c tio n s th a t ca n b e b ro u g h t to g e th e r.” L ien v . C o u c h , 9 9 3 S .W .2 d 5 3 , 5 6 (T e n n . C t. A pp. 1 9 9 8 ); s ee a l s o C r eec h v. A ddi ngt on, 281 S. W
. 3d 363, 376 ( T enn. 2009) ( obs ervi ng that r es j udi cat a bar s s econd s ui t “w i th r es pectt o al l i s s ues w hi ch w er e orcoul d have be en l i t i gat ed i n the form ers ui t ”)
. A party “as s ert i ng a r es j udi cat a defe ns e mustdemonstr at e that ( 1) a cour t of com pet ent j ur i s di ct i on r ender ed t he pri or j udgm ent , ( 2) the pr i orj udgm entw asU n d e r T e n n e ss e e law , a c laim o f to rtio u s in ter f

e re n c e re q u ire s p ro o f

o f: 3 (1) a n ex ist ing b u sine ss re la tio n sh ip w ith sp ec ifi c third p arti es o r a pr os pect i ve r el at i ons hi p w i th an i dent i fi abl e cl as s of thi r d per s ons ; ( 2) the d ef en d an t’ s k n o w le d g e o f th at relat ion sh ip an d n o t a m ere a w a re n e ss o f th e p lain tiff ’s b u sin e ss d e a lin g s w ith o th e rs in g e n e ra l; ( 3) the def

endant ’s i nt entt o caus e the br eac h ort erm i nat i on of the bus i nes s r el at i ons hi p; ( 4) the def end an t ’ s i m pr operm ot i ve or i m pr operm eans ; and fi nal l y , ( 5) damages r es ul t i ng fr om the t or t i ous i nt er fer ence . T r au- M ed of A m . , I nc. v. A l l s t at e I ns . C o. , 71 S. W
. 3d 691, 701 ( T enn. 2002) ( footnot es and cit ati o n s o m itted) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). 4 f in a l an d o n th e m e rits, (3 ) th e sa m e p a rties o r th e ir p riv ies w e re in v o lv e d in b o th pr ocee di ngs , and ( 4) both pr ocee di ngs i nvol ved the s ame caus e of a ct i on. ” L i en v. C ouch, 9 9 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 6
.

a. B oth C l ai m s W er e A vai l abl e D ur i ng the Tennes s ee A ct i on L as kerar gues thathe coul d nothave i ncl uded hi s t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl ai m i n t he T en n esse e a cti o n b ec au se h e lac k ed k n o w ledg e o f the fa cts n ec essa ry fo r th at claim
. W e a re
n o t p e r s u a d e d
. La s k e r ’ s Te n n e s s e e c o mp l a i n t a l l e g e d , i n t e ra l i a , th a tUBS (1 ) h a d n o b a sis forcl ai m i ng thata “M at er i al A dver s e Effec t ” had oc curr ed at G en esco, C om pl
. ¶¶ 73, 75, 79, ( 2) w as w or ki ng t o “underm i ne and s abot age the cl os i ng of the M er ger , ” I d. ¶ 5, and ( 3) had at t empt ed “t o cr eat e a f al s e i m pr es s i on thatG enes co [w as ] i m pr oper l yw i thhol di ng fi nanci al i nform at i on, ” i d. ¶ 105. L i ke t he di s tr i ct court , w e conc l ude thatthes e al l egat i ons
we r e s u f f i c i e n tt o s t a t e th e “ i mpr o p e rme a n s ” e l e me n to f a t o r t i o u s i n t e r f

e r e n c e c l a i m. 35

I ndeed, the N ew Y or k act i on r es t ed on s tr i ki ngl ys i m i l aral l egat i ons , i f i n s l i ght l ydi ffe r ent form and aug m ented bynew fact s. L as ker’s arg u m entthatU B S’ s fr aud count er cl ai m agai ns tG enes co pr ovi ded a ne w bas i s forhi s t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl aim fa il s beca us e ( 1) the fr aud count er cl ai m al l eged fai l ur e t o di s cl os e mat er i al fi nanci al i nform at i on, an al l egat i on al r eadychal l enged byL as ker i n the then- pendi ng T ennes s ee a ct i on; and ( 2) L as kercoul d have a m ended hi s T enness ee compl ai ntt o r efe r ence the fr aud count er cl ai m , w hi ch w as fi l ed tw o w eeks befor e di s m i s s al of the T en n es s ee a ct i on. T he ques t i on i s notw hethernew fac t s ul t i m at el ys tr engthened L as ker ’ s tort iou s i nt er fer ence cl ai m , butr atherw hetherthe cl ai m “r eas onabl ycoul d have been l i t i gat e d ” i n th e Te n n e s s e e a c t i o n . Hey l i g e r v . St a t e Uni v . a n d Comm. Col l
. Sy s . of T e n n ., 1 2 6 F .3 d 8 4 9 , 8 5 4 (6 th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) ( in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis in

or i gi nal )
. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, w e ans w erthatques t i on i n the af fi r m at i ve. b
. D ism iss a l o n th e M e rits L as kerar gues thatthe cha ncerycourt ’ s di s m i s s al of t he T ennes s ee act i on w as noton the mer i t s beca us e the rul i ng d id n o t“r efl ecton the def endant s ’ i nnocenc e orl ack of

r es pons i bi l i tyforthe al l eged c onduct
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r. at 4 1
. W hi l e thi s m aybe the

s t andar d fores t abl i s hi ng the “f avor abl e t erm i nat i on” el ementof a mal i ci o u s pr os ecut i on cl ai m , s ee Parr i s h v. M ar qui s , 172 S. W
. 3d 526, 531 ( T enn. 2005) , i ti s notthe s t andar d for det erm i ni ng w hethera dism iss al w as an adj udi cat i on on the mer i t s . “I n T ennes s ee, any6

di s m i s s al of a cl ai m other than a di s m i s s al forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, forl ack of venue, orfor l ack of an i ndi s pens abl e party‘ oper at es as an adj udi cat i on upon the m er i t s , ’ unl es s the tr i al

courts peci fi es otherw i s e i n i t s or der for di s m i s s al
. ” C r eec h v. A ddi ngt on, 281 S. W
. 3d at378 ( quot i ng T enn. R
. C i v. P. 41. 02( 3) )
. H er e, U B S m oved t o di s m i s s the Tennes s ee a ct i on for fai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m pur s uantt o T enn. R
. C i v. P. 12. 02( 6)
. T he C hance ryC our tgr ant ed the mot i on w i thoutr efe r ence t o j ur i s di ct i on, venue, ori ndi s pens abl e part i es , and w i thout in d ic a tio n th a t th e ru lin g w a s n o t o n th e m e ri ts
. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude t hatdi s m i s s al of the T enn essee act i on w as on the m eri t s.

c. Sam e C aus e of A ct i on Fi nal l y , L as ker ar gues thatU B S’ s r es j udi cat a def ens e fa i l s beca us e the pr ocur ement of br eac h and t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl ai m s ar e di s t i nctcaus es of ac t i on, eac h dep endi ng on “di ffe r ent i s s ues , fac t s and evi dence
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at50. T hi s m i s per cei ves the r el evant in q u iry . T w o su its “ sh a ll b e d e e m e d th e sa m e ‘c a u se o f a c tio n ’ fo r pu rp o se s o f re s ju d ica ta

w her e theyar i s e outof the s ame t r ans act i on or a s er i es of connec t ed tr ans act i ons . ” C r eec h

v. A ddi ngt on, 281 S. W
. 3d at 381. B oth the T ennes s ee and N ew Y or k act i ons ar os e outof the s er i es of eve nt s l eadi ng up t o and fol l ow i ng the aborted m erg er b et w een G enes co and F in is h L in e . T h e re f

o re , th e tw o s u its a ri s e f ro m th e s a m e c a u s e o f

a c tio n . W e h av e c o n side red all o f th e p lai n ti ff -ap p ell an t’ s rem ainin g arg u m en ts an d co n cl ude th a t th e ya re w ith o u t m e ri t.7

Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED
. FOR TH E CO UR T: CATHERI

NE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Cler k of Court
B y :