Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. Staff

15 Citing briefs

  1. NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: [360] MOTION Renewed Motion for Specific Performance of the Equal Treatment Provision. Brief of Non-Party Bank of New York Mellon, as Indenture Trustee, Addressing the Issues Raised on Remand from the Court of Appeals. Document

    Filed November 16, 2012

    BNY Mellon’s receipt of funds on behalf of the Exchange Holders is not active concert or participation in Argentina’s failure to pay Plaintiffs. It is not an action taken to help, benefit, or assist Argentina, Alemite Mfg., 42 F.2d at 833, nor can it rise to the level of “affirmative assistance” or “concealment” of Argentina’s separate failure to pay Plaintiffs that would lead to a finding of Case 1:08-cv-06978-TPG Document 396 Filed 11/16/12 Page 19 of 26 - 13 - aiding and abetting that failure, In re Sharp Int’l. Corp., 403 F.3d at 50.8 BNY Mellon’s ministerial actions under the Indenture have nothing to do with whether Argentina complies with the Injunction.

  2. HASSELL v. BIRD

    Respondents’ Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed January 24, 2017

    The Alemite appellant was acting on his own behalf, completely independent from the enjoined defendants. (Alemite, 42 F.2d at 833.) Obviously, while an injunction can run to parties through whom a defendantacts, no injunction can prevent unnamedparties elsewhere in the universe from their ownindependentactionsthat are unrelated to the enjoined defendant.

  3. Arista Records LLC, et al. v. Vita Tkach, et al.

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 35 MOTION for Order to Show Cause. . Document

    Filed May 28, 2015

    As with Rule 65(d), the Court’s equitable power to bind nonparties is limited to persons who “either abet the defendant, or must be legally identified with him.” Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 833 (2d Cir. 1930). In fact, Rule 65 merely codifies this common-law limitation.

  4. NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [459] MOTION Clarification of November 21, 2012 Orders.. Document

    Filed May 22, 2013

    If it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen, and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it. Alemite Mfg., 42 F.2d at 832. In General Building Contractors, the Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 does not allow a court to lawfully enjoin the world at large.

  5. HASSELL v. BIRD

    Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed March 16, 2017

    Sections B, C, supra. Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Alemite Mfg. Corp.v. Staff(2d Cir. 1930) 42 F.2d 832,833, exposes this fundamentalflaw in their claims. They argue thatthere, “appellant was acting on its own behalf, completely independent from the enjoined defendants.”

  6. HASSELL v. BIRD

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 21, 2016

    As Judge Learned Hand explained nearly a century ago, a court is “is not vested with sovereign powersto declare conduct unlawful; its jurisdiction is limited to those over whomit gets personal service, and who therefore can have their day in court.” Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff(2d Cir. 1930) 42 F.2d 832, 832-833. The court emphasized that “[t]his means that the respondent must either abet the defendant, or must belegally identified with him.”

  7. BASKIN et al v. BOGAN et al

    BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Summary Judgment AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed April 22, 2014

    Comm. to End War in Viet Nam, 399 U.S. 383, 389 (1970). Plaintiffs must state with specificity not only who is to be bound, Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832 (2d Cir. 1930) (“[N]o court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; . . . it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, [and i]f it assumes to do so, the decree is pro tanto brutum fulmen, and the persons enjoined are free to ignore it.” (opinion of Hand, J.)), but also how they are to be bound, Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974) (per Case 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB Document 56 Filed 04/22/14 Page 28 of 75 PageID #: 572 15 curiam) (“Since an injunctive order prohibits conduct under threat of judicial punishment, basic fairness requires that those enjoined receive explicit notice of precisely what conduct is outlawed.”)

  8. NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: [360] MOTION Renewed Motion for Specific Performance of the Equal Treatment Provision.. Document

    Filed November 16, 2012

    It would be unprecedented – and unwarranted – to hold liable as aiders and abettors participants in the financial markets doing no more than carrying out their normal business functions and fulfilling their own obligations to third parties. See Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 833 (2d Cir. 1930) (“[T]he only occasion when a person not a party may be punished, is when he has helped to bring about, not merely what the decree has forbidden . . . but what it has power to forbid, an act of a party.”).

  9. Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management

    Memorandum in Opposition re Amended MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed March 12, 2010

    It is axiomatic that “no court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree.” Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1930) (Hand, J.). The Supreme Court has identified six exceptions to the general “rule against nonparty preclusion,” none of which apply here.

  10. Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management

    Memorandum in Opposition re Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed March 2, 2010

    It is axiomatic that “no court can make a decree which will bind any one but a party; a court of equity is as much so limited as a court of law; it cannot lawfully enjoin the world at large, no matter how broadly it words its decree.” Alemite Mfg. Corporation v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832-33 (2d Cir. 1930) (Hand, J.). The Supreme Court has identified six exceptions to the general “rule against nonparty preclusion,” none of which apply here.