Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp.

Meide v. Pulse Evolution Corp.

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION¹

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on: (1) Defendants Centineo, Natale, Agnes King and John King's Supplemental Motion for Amount of Attorneys' Fees to Be Awarded as Sanctions (the "Centineo Defendants' Motion") (Doc. 171) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition [*2]  thereto (Doc. 179); (2) Defendants Laura Anthony's and Michael Anthony's Verified Supplemental Memorandum on Attorneys' Fees and Costs (the "Anthonys' Motion") (Doc. 172) and Plaintiff and Counsel's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 181); and (3) Pulse Defendants' Supplemental Motion as to Amount of Attorneys' Fees and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (the "Pulse Defendants' Motion") (Doc. 174) and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 180). For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the Motions be GRANTED to the extent stated herein.

I. Introduction

The relevant procedural history of this case was included in the Court's Orders, dated September 4, 2020 and September 29, 2021 Order, and will not be repeated here. (See Docs. 141, 164.) In the September 4, 2020 Order, the Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss to the extent it dismissed Plaintiff's securities fraud claim under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") (Count I of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint) with prejudice and the remaining state law claims (Counts II-VI of the Second Amended Complaint) without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court. (Doc. 141.) [*3]  In the same Order, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Count I, while reserving jurisdiction to determine the issue of sanctions under the PSLRA. (Id.) On September 8, 2020, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants Pulse Evolution Corporation, John Textor, Gregory Centineo, Julie Natale, Dana Tejeda, Agnes King, John King, Evolution AI Corporation, Jordan Fiksenbaum, Laura Anthony, and Frank Patterson, and against Plaintiff Scott Meide on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 142.)

Before deciding the issue of sanctions, the Court provided the parties with an opportunity to mediate that issue. (See Doc. 141.) After the parties were unable to resolve it at mediation, the Court set a briefing schedule and, on September 29, 2021, it ruled on Defendants' motions for sanctions. (See Docs. 146, 147, 164.) In the September 29, 2021 Order, the Court granted the Anthonys' renewed motion for sanctions² (Doc. 158), and granted in part the remaining Defendants' motions for sanctions (Docs. 156 & 157) to the extent the Court found that these Defendants were entitled to sanctions stemming from the securities [*4]  fraud claims asserted in the First and Second Amended Complaints. (See Doc. 164.)

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.