Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,849 Ernest Klein v. Walston & Co., Inc.

432 F.2d 936, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6707
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedOctober 29, 1970
Docket142, Docket 34735
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 432 F.2d 936 (Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,849 Ernest Klein v. Walston & Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,849 Ernest Klein v. Walston & Co., Inc., 432 F.2d 936, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6707 (2d Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in the District Court for the Eastern District of *937 New York in 1969, sought damages in connection with securities transactions in 1959, with respect to which defendant had secured a judgment in the Supreme Court of New York for New York County in 1961. The complaint alleged claims based on contract and fraud, and also under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The common law claims had been alleged in an action brought by plaintiff in 1964 in the Supreme Court for Kings County, which was pending undetermined. On defendant’s motion Judge Bartels entered an order staying proceedings in the federal action until final determination of this state action.

The order was well within the judge’s discretion. See Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F.2d 301 (2 Cir. 1949). While because of the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts to enforce the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, § 27, the state court will not be able to determine certain claims asserted in the federal suit but not advanced in the state action, it can authoritatively determine the common law claims and perhaps also defenses such as res adjudicata and the statute of limitations that may be dispositive of the 1934 Act claims as well. Particularly in these days of congested calendars the judge was amply justified in not allowing litigation of these hoary claims to occupy the energies of two courts at the same time.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lorentzen v. Levolor Corp.
754 F. Supp. 987 (S.D. New York, 1990)
Kamerman v. Steinberg
681 F. Supp. 206 (S.D. New York, 1988)
Rose v. Village of Upper Nyack, NY
669 F. Supp. 654 (S.D. New York, 1987)
Murphy v. Gallagher
761 F.2d 878 (Second Circuit, 1985)
Tabas v. Mullane
608 F. Supp. 759 (D. New Jersey, 1985)
De Carvalhosa v. Lindgren
546 F. Supp. 228 (S.D. New York, 1982)
Aro v. Lichtig
537 F. Supp. 599 (E.D. New York, 1982)
Los Angeles NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified School District
518 F. Supp. 1053 (C.D. California, 1981)
Leber-Krebs, Inc. v. Clinton
517 F. Supp. 593 (S.D. New York, 1981)
Giulini v. Blessing
654 F.2d 189 (Second Circuit, 1981)
Classen v. Weller
516 F. Supp. 1243 (N.D. California, 1981)
Byrd v. United States
377 F. Supp. 1158 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Maldonado v. Flynn
477 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D. New York, 1979)
O & F Tennessee Land, Inc. v. Ramsey
493 F. Supp. 161 (E.D. Tennessee, 1978)
Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen
544 F.2d 624 (Second Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
432 F.2d 936, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fed-sec-l-rep-p-92849-ernest-klein-v-walston-co-inc-ca2-1970.