1 11-4496 Vioni v. American Capital Strategies, Ltd., et al.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**(Filed Under Seal) (Redacted Version)** 

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN**
**ELECTRONIC DATABASE (**  **WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”).**  **A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST** 
**SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 18 th** **day of January, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 8 **REENA RAGGI,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **LISA VIONI and HEDGE CONNECTION,** 13 **INC.,** 14 **Plaintiffs-Appellants ,**  15 16 **-v.- 11-4496** 17 18 **AMERICAN CAPITAL STRATEGIES, LTD.;** 19 **PROVIDENCE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT,** 20 **L.L.C.; PROVIDENCE INVESTMENT** 21 **PARTNERS, L.L.C.; and RUSSELL JEFFREY,** 22 **Defendants-Appellees ,**  23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 24 252 **FOR APPELLANT:** Michael Quinn Carey, Carey & 1 Associates LLC, New York, New 2 York. 3 4 **FOR APPELLEE AMERICAN** 5 **CAPITAL STRATEGIES,** 6
**LTD.:** 7 8 9 **FOR APPELLEES** 10 **PROVIDENCE INVESTMENT** 11 **MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.;** 12 **PROVIDENCE INVESTMENT** 13 **PARTNERS, L.L.C.; and** 14 **RUSSELL JEFFREY** : 15 Stewart D. Aaron, (Erik C. Walsh, on the brief ), Arnold & Porter, LLP, New York, New York.

Neil H. Klausner, (David S. Greenberg, Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York, New York; Gerald C. Maria, John F. Kelleher, Higgins, Cavanaugh & Cooney, LLP, Providence, Rhode Island on the brief ), Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York, New York

16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 17 Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J. ). 18 19 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 20 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 21 **AFFIRMED IN PART**and **REVERSED IN PART**

. 22 23 Lisa Vioni appeals from the judgment of the United 24 States District Court for the Southern District of New York 25 (Crotty, J. ), granting summary judgment in favor of 26 defendants-appellees and imposing sanctions on Vioni’s 27 attorney, Michael Quinn Carey . Vioni brought this action 28 for breach of contract and quantum meruit to recover a 29 finder’s fee she alleges was owed for introducing Russell 30 Jeffrey of Providence Investment Management, L.L.C., and 31 Providence Investment Partners, L.L.C. (collectively 32 “Providence”) to Robert Grunewald of American Capital 33 Strategies, Ltd. (“American Capital”). The district court 34 held that Vioni had failed to satisfy New York’s statute of 35 frauds. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 36 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 37 presented for review. 38 39 We review de novoa district court’s grant of summary 40 judgment. Mario v. P&C Food Mkts., Inc. , 313 F.3d 758, 763 413 (2d Cir. 2002). We review a district court’s decision to 1 impose sanctions for abuse of discretion. Wolters Kluwer 2 Fin. Sevs., Inc. v. Scivantage , 564 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 3 2009). 4 5 1. “In order to recover in quantum meruit under New 6 York law, a claimant must establish ‘(1) the performance of 7 services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services 8 by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation 9 of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of 10 the services.’” Mid-Hudson Catskill Rural Migrant Ministry, 11 Inc. v. Fine Host Corp. , 418 F.3d 168, 175 (2d Cir. 2005) 12 (quoting Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C. , 221 F.3d 59, 69 13 (2d Cir. 2000)). Both parties must understand that the 14 party performing the services has a reasonable expectation 15 of compensation for those services. See Aluminum Fair, Inc. 16 v. Abdella , 456 N.Y.S.2d 184, 185 (App. Div. 3d Dept. 1982); 17 DiBella v. Hopkins , 187 F. Supp. 2d 192, 201 (S.D.N.Y. 18 2002). 19 20 2. Under New York’s statute of frauds, any “contract 21 to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating a 22 loan, or in negotiating the purchase [or] sale . . . of a 23 business opportunity, business, its good will, inventory, 24 fixtures or an interest therein,” must be in writing to be 25 enforceable. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-701(a)(10). This 26 applies to claims for quantum meruit . Morris Cohon & Co. v. 27 Russell , 23 N.Y. 2d 569 (1969). To satisfy the statute of 28 frauds for a claim for quantum meruit , “a sufficient 29 memorandum need only evidence the fact of plaintiff’s 30 employment by defendant to render the alleged services.” 31 Id. at 575-76. The memorandum need not contain an express 32 agreement to pay for the services; the agreement can be 33 found “by reasonable construction and necessary 34 implication.” Id. at 574. The memorandum may postdate the 35 services. Seeid. at 574-76. 36 37 3. Vioni’s claim against American Capital fails 38 because the only discussions Vioni had with Grunewald about 39 compensation involved potential marketing work for American 40 Capital, work that never materialized. That part of the 41 district court’s opinion granting summary judgment in favor 42 of American Capital is therefore **AFFIRMED**

. 43 444 4. Vioni’s claim against Jeffrey and Providence, on 1 the other hand, satisfies the statute of frauds. Writings 2 from March 26, 2007; April 19, 2007; and June 5, 2007 3 together permit a finding that Jeffrey hired Vioni to 4 introduce him to persons with whom Jeffrey could enter into 5 any mutually beneficial arrangement for his investment 6 business. That part of the district court’s opinion 7 granting summary judgment in favor of Jeffrey and Providence 8 is therefore **REVERSED**

. 9 10 5. The district court did not abuse its discretion in 11 imposing sanctions on Vioni’s attorney, Michael Quinn Carey, 12 for taking wasteful depositions. The district court’s award 13 was not excessive and was supported by a well-reasoned and 14 thorough accounting of the precise way in which the 15 depositions at issue were frivolous, repetitive, or time16 wasting. We therefore **AFFIRM**the district court’s decision 17 to impose sanctions. 18 19 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby **AFFIRM IN PART**and 20 **REVERSE IN PART**the judgment of the district court. The 21 case is remanded to the district court for further 22 proceedings. 23 24 25 FOR THE COURT: 26 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 27 28