Panix Productions, Ltd. v. Lewis

106 F. App'x 757
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided August 30, 2004·No. No. 02-7791·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants challenge the order of the District Court denying their motion for a new trial. On appeal, Appellants argue that the District Court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a new trial on the bases that (1) an ex parte freeze order obtained against Appellants by Ap-pellee Lewis’s counsel denied them then-right to a fair trial by (a) restricting funds necessary to litigation of this matter, and (b) hindering pre-trial witness preparation; (2) witness interference on the part of Appellee Main Events’ counsel denied them their right to a fair trial; and (3) the jury returned inconsistent verdicts.

We have considered Appellants’ arguments and hold that they are all without [758] merit. Accordingly, the order of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

Panix Productions, Ltd. v. Lewis, 106 F. App'x 757 (2d Cir. 2004).

106 F. App'x 757 (Panix Productions, Ltd. v. Lewis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matrix Essentials v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.
346 F. Supp. 2d 384 (E.D. New York, 2004)