Shanus-REA suit

[Leon]

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I thought the suit was about Corey recovering what he paid for some trophy balls which were alleged to have been painted with a type of paint that did not exist in the 19th century? Am I wrong, or was this part of the suit dismissed?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Count I was about different balls that Corey did buy. The "1861 Trophy Ball" and the "1853 Trophy Ball."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leon -- the lulling fraud count did not go to the jury. The court decided it on summary judgment.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leon -- the lulling fraud count did not go to the jury. The court decided it on summary judgment.

FIxed thanks. Now back to cards.

[oldjudge]

What happens with attorney's fees on a case like this? Is the winning side's fees paid by the losing side, or is it up to the judge to award fees if he/she sees fit? If the latter, were they awarded in this case?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

What happens with attorney's fees on a case like this? Is the winning side's fees paid by the losing side, or is it up to the judge to award fees if he/she sees fit? If the latter, were they awarded in this case?

Attorneys' fees are awarded in U.S. litigation only when the underlying claim is under a statute (e.g. antitrust, unfair or deceptive trade practice) that allows them for a prevailing plaintiff. In the ordinary civil case such as this one, each side pays its own fees.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Point #11 is the scary one, for me.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jay,
Here are the allegations in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the First Amended Complaint brought by Corey.
Corey never bought the trophy balls where there was no sale with Nash. He bought others after that. The jury felt he relied on the false sale of the balls for future purchases, with clear and convincing evidence (according to the statute that had to be overcome). My guess is that if the transcripts ever come out they will be interesting to a few, myself included.

To summarize even more -
First count, for lulling him into giving up his claim against Mastro on the balls he did buy. Judge didn't buy it.
Second count, for manipulating the market and inducing him to overpay on other stuff. Jury bought it.


Hope that helps clear a little of this mess up. It is worth repeating that appeals are expected.

Something's missing there right?
What's shown makes it look like someone consigned stuff, shilled it, never paid. Then a second person relies on those sales and sues because he overpaid? And that all the items involved were fake? Sounds like the AH is being punished for what the consigner did.
Not that it isn't the law, it just seems less than fair (I know by now that those things aren't always aligned)

[Exhibitman]

I think it is that Rob knew that the earlier sales never took but reported them as genuine sales so that bidders would rely on the bogus report in setting a bid level on the next items up for sale.

[mantlefan]

I've been away and I've read through this tonight. I get the feeling that this thread was left to die on the vine. Not sure of the intent. The "Law" is a complexity of which I have very little specific knowledge and I appreciate the explanations by all the attorneys on this Forum. I'm frustrated by all the backbiting and hijackings on this thread; I am also surprised that the OP, RL, has not chosen to comment:

We have no fancy PR firm (and don’t need one) and I can’t discuss details of a lawsuit that is filed against me because it just isn’t done, but I can assure any and all that this has NO merit.

Well, the case is over now and the verdict has been heard and I wonder what Rob's response will be...or if there ever will be a response?

I'm no lawyer, but as a doctor I like to cut to the heart (sorry) of the problem. If I squeeze the data and cut away all the bs, I see this:




A jury has determined that RL is guilty of misrepresentation in an auction-related matter. I know appeal, re-trial, yadda ,yadda, yadda,....but guys, Rob L. has been found guilty of doing something that is contradictory to the core values of his profession. That's huge. Are there other misdeeds? I don't know, but I do know that according to a court of law RL has betrayed his client on at least one occasion.

Again, nothing here at all about Brian Dwyer who is one of the most honest men I know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Frank, when I posted about the verdict I expected more discussion as well if for no other reason than the prominence of the parties and the nature of the allegations, but perhaps because Rob L. is out of the business it is of little interest?

[Snapolit1]

Kind of a sign of the times I guess. Different sliding scales for conduct if the person charged is on your team or on the other team. If it's your friend the parish priest/rabbi or youth organization volunteer charged with sexual abuse, you disbelieve or find some reason to excuse the conduct. If it's your public figure charged with wrongdoing, the man or woman you support, you look the other way or minimize the conduct. "Matt Lauer? Oh, he's a nice guy. I can't believe he would do that. " If it's your guy caught using PEDS you continue to slam Bonds and Sosa but welcome your guy back with open arms when the suspension is over. Charge other people with wrongdoing all day long, but when the shoe is squarely on the other foot you yawn loudly, put your head down and quietly walk away.

[slidekellyslide]

I think what you have here is a lot of people who are friends with both Rob and Corey. Also the story is still a bit fuzzy as to what exactly happened. Not a peep out of Peter Nash who loves to take a swipe at Rob with every breath he takes.