Raabe v. Universe Tankships

S.D. New York

Raabe v. Universe Tankships

263 F. Supp. 786, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6670

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedOctober 14, 1966

Docket66 Civ. 1284

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 263 F. Supp. 786 (Raabe v. Universe Tankships) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Raabe v. Universe Tankships, 263 F. Supp. 786, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6670 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

COOPER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs’ attorney moves for an order prohibiting defendants, their agents and attorneys, from communicating with plaintiffs except through him and holding void the results of any such com[787]*787munication made after defendants had notice of plaintiffs’ retention of counsel.

Plaintiffs are the representatives of three German and seven Okinawan seamen who died in a disaster at sea .in 1964. If acceptable, the terms of this motion would avoid a settlement defendants reached with the three German plaintiffs. These settlements were admittedly made without the consent or knowledge of plaintiffs’ New York attorney. This in itself is not sufficient reason to avoid the settlements. A client has an absolute right to settle a case without the consent of his attorney. Matter of Snyder, 190 N.Y. 66, 82 N.E. 742, 14 L.R.A., N.S., 1101 (1907). Absent a showing by the German plaintiffs of overreaching or other impropriety by defendants, this court will not void the settlements.

The question of defendants’ communications with the Okinawan plaintiffs raises more disturbing questions. Seamen, their widows and offspring are the wards of Admiralty and come within the special protection of this Court. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942); Hassan v. A. M. Landry & Son, Inc., 321 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 486, 11 L.Ed.2d 416 (1964). This Court, cognizant of the inherent inequality in any negotiations between the corporate defendants and plaintiffs, would look with disfavor upon any steps tantamount to circumventing plaintiffs’ attorney. We have the power to regulate the conduct of litigants and attorneys seeking justice. However, upon the papers before us, we cannot find that defendants have perpetrated such acts of oppression, harassment or overreaching as to now entitle movant injunctive relief.

Motion denied without prejudice upon a showing that would warrant court interference.

This shall be considered an order; settlement thereof is unnecessary.

So ordered.

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

COOPER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs’ attorney moves for an order prohibiting defendants, their agents and attorneys, from communicating with plaintiffs except through him and holding void the results of any such com[787]*787munication made after defendants had notice of plaintiffs’ retention of counsel.

Plaintiffs are the representatives of three German and seven Okinawan seamen who died in a disaster at sea .in 1964. If acceptable, the terms of this motion would avoid a settlement defendants reached with the three German plaintiffs. These settlements were admittedly made without the consent or knowledge of plaintiffs’ New York attorney. This in itself is not sufficient reason to avoid the settlements. A client has an absolute right to settle a case without the consent of his attorney. Matter of Snyder, 190 N.Y. 66, 82 N.E. 742, 14 L.R.A., N.S., 1101 (1907). Absent a showing by the German plaintiffs of overreaching or other impropriety by defendants, this court will not void the settlements.

The question of defendants’ communications with the Okinawan plaintiffs raises more disturbing questions. Seamen, their widows and offspring are the wards of Admiralty and come within the special protection of this Court. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942); Hassan v. A. M. Landry & Son, Inc., 321 F.2d 570 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 967, 84 S.Ct. 486, 11 L.Ed.2d 416 (1964). This Court, cognizant of the inherent inequality in any negotiations between the corporate defendants and plaintiffs, would look with disfavor upon any steps tantamount to circumventing plaintiffs’ attorney. We have the power to regulate the conduct of litigants and attorneys seeking justice. However, upon the papers before us, we cannot find that defendants have perpetrated such acts of oppression, harassment or overreaching as to now entitle movant injunctive relief.

Motion denied without prejudice upon a showing that would warrant court interference.

This shall be considered an order; settlement thereof is unnecessary.

So ordered.

Veronica Lewis, Individually Etc., Naomi Barry Pottinger, Individually, Etc., Vincent Lewis, Daisy Llewellyn, and Margaret Clark, Individually, Etc. v. S. S. Baune, in the Matter of Skibs A/s Baumare and Torvald Klaveness, as Owner Andmanaging Owner of the S/s Baune, Petitioning for Exoneration From or Limitationof Liability v. Phyllis Hoyt, Claimants-Appellees

534 F.2d 1115 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 F. Supp. 786, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raabe-v-universe-tankships-nysd-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack