Panix Productions, Ltd. v. Lewis
Panix Productions, Ltd. v. Lewis
Opinion of the Court
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
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PANIX PRODUCTIONS, LTD. and Panix of the U.S., Inc., Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants, Panos Eliades, Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Lennox LEWIS and New Jersey Sports Productions, Inc., d/b/a Main Events Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, Lennox Lewis Enterprises, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Shogun Securities Ltd., Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Milton CHWASKY, Richard Ashkens and Kyriacss Antoniou, Third-Party-Defendants-Counter-Defendants, John Does, 1-5, fictitious and Richard Roe Corporation 1-5, fictitious entities, Third-Party-Defendants
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published