Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
11-831
In the
United States Court of Appeals
 For the Second Circuit
O
STAN LEE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
STAN LEE MEDIA, INC.,
 Movant-Appellant,
– v. –MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC. and MARVEL CHARACTERS, INC.,
 Defendants-Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX FORMOVANT-APPELLANT
D
UNNINGTON
B
ARTHOLOW
&
 
M
ILLER
,
 
LLP
 Attorneys for Movant-Appellant 
1359 Broadway, Suite 600New York, New York 10018(212) 682-8811
APPELLATE INNOVATIONS(914) 948-2240
5833
 
i
 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 26.1OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Movant-Appellant in this action, Stan Lee Media Inc., an administratively-dissolvedColorado corporation (“SLMI”), states that it does not have a corporate parentand there is no publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of SLMI stock.
 
ii
 
Table of ContentsPage
I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................ 1II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ................................................................. 1III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................... 4IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................ 12A. Lee v. Marvel (2002-2005) ............................................................... 12B. On January 8, 2007, Lee Commenced An Ownership RightsCase In California, After Which Various Shareholders AttemptTo Bring Derivative Lawsuits In SLMI's Name ............................... 13C. Judge Crotty Dismisses The First New York DerivativeLawsuit Because Putative Plaintiff's Counsel Was NotAuthorized To Represent SLMI ....................................................... 15D. Judge Crotty Dismisses The Second New York DerivativeLawsuit Because Putative Derivative Plaintiffs Had NoStanding And Did Not Adequately Represent SLMI ....................... 15E. The Colorado Court of Appeals Authorizes A New Board ForSLMI, And The California Court Lifts The Stay In TheCalifornia Litigation ......................................................................... 16F. SLMI's Intervention Into
 Lee v. Marvel
........................................... 19G. The California Case Is Stayed Again Pending DeterminationOf This Appeal .................................................................................. 21V. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................ 23VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 26VII. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 30A. Standard of Review .......................................................................... 30B. Discussion of Issues ......................................................................... 321. The District Court Erred By Declining To Vacate Its JudgmentPursuant To Rule 60 Because The Subject Matter of 
 Lee v. Marvel
 Was Property Of SLMI's Bankruptcy Estate And, In Addition,Lee's Misconduct, SLMI's Changed Circumstances And TheAvoidance Of A Grave Injustice To 1,800 ShareholdersNecessitates Rule 60 Relief ............................................................. 32
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    2 p.
    Honoring Our Federal Defenders
    Ray Dowd
    27 Reads
    28 p.
    Scholars Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Review Nazi Looted Art Case
    Ray Dowd
    217 Reads
    158 p.
    Vavra v Bakalar Cert Petition - Nazi Looted Art At US Supreme Court
    Ray Dowd
    377 Reads
    23 p.
    Ray Dowd & Luke McGrath- Discovery and Pre-Trial Investigations Wes...
    Ray Dowd
    278 Reads
    135 p.
    11-4042-Cv Appellant's Brief and Special Appendix
    Ray Dowd
    900 Reads
    69 p.
    Golan v Holder
    Ray Dowd
    704 Reads
    20 p.
    John Wiley Pursues Bit Torrent Dummies
    Ray Dowd
    1930 Reads
    10 p.
    Syrus v. Bennett - Copyright Infringement
    Ray Dowd
    430 Reads
    7 p.
    Supreme Court of the United States Swearing In Ceremony in Hartford...
    Ray Dowd
    646 Reads
    52 p.
    In Re Literary Database Litigation
    Ray Dowd
    800 Reads
    28 p.
    John Wiley & Sons v Kirtsaeng
    Ray Dowd
    1498 Reads
    32 p.
    Christian Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent
    Ray Dowd
    1617 Reads
    50 p.
    Marvel v Kirby McMahon Order 7 28 11
    Ray Dowd
    853 Reads
    9 p.
    Nova Design Build Inc v Grace Hotels
    Ray Dowd
    316 Reads
    124 p.
    Southern District of New York New Local Rules
    Ray Dowd
    2982 Reads
    9 p.
    Marchig v Christie's
    Ray Dowd
    785 Reads
    17 p.
    Spooner v EEN Inc
    Ray Dowd
    316 Reads
    9 p.
    Whitmill v Warner Bros - Tyson Tattoo Hangover Case
    Ray Dowd
    496 Reads
    28 p.
    Warner Bros Entertainment v X One X Productions 8th Cir July 5 2011
    Ray Dowd
    1067 Reads
    3 p.
    Cabell v SONY Pictures
    Ray Dowd
    820 Reads
    1 p.
    6-30-11 Emips Cle Lunch Flyer1 (3)
    Ray Dowd
    850 Reads
    88 p.
    Barclays v wall 10-1372_both
    Ray Dowd
    525 Reads
    30 p.
    Murphy v Millenium Radio
    Ray Dowd
    1146 Reads
    22 p.
    TMTV Corp v Mass Productions (1st Cir. Puerto Rico June 13 2011)
    Ray Dowd
    746 Reads
    Notes
    Load more