Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Joseph C. Canizaro v. Kohlmeyer & Company, 74-2014 (1975)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 74-2014 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 02, 1975
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 512 F.2d 484 Joseph C. CANIZARO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOHLMEYER & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 74-2014. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 2, 1975. Peter J. Butler, New Orleans, La., Paul E. Hurley, P. J. Stakelum, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant. Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., Charles E. Hamilton, III, Earl S. Eichin, Jr., New Orleans, La., Roger L. Waldman, New York City, for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Distric
More

512 F.2d 484

Joseph C. CANIZARO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KOHLMEYER & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 74-2014.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 1975.

Peter J. Butler, New Orleans, La., Paul E. Hurley, P. J. Stakelum, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Charles Kohlmeyer, Jr., Charles E. Hamilton, III, Earl S. Eichin, Jr., New Orleans, La., Roger L. Waldman, New York City, for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before THORNBERRY, SIMPSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The appellant, Canizaro, brought suit in the Southern District of New York against a number of New York defendants for damages for claimed violations of Section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Title 15 U.S.C. § 77l(2), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 promulgated pursuant to § 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Title 15 U.S.C. § 78j, and on various state law principles in connection with a purchase by Canizaro of certain securities in May 1970. A New Orleans, Louisiana based registered broker-dealer, Kohlmeyer & Company (Kohlmeyer), the appellee herein, served as Canizaro's broker or seller in the actual consummation of the purchase, and was named as a defendant in addition to the New York defendants. Upon Kohlmeyer's motion, the case against the appellee was severed and transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana.

2

Following a full-scale trial on the merits, the district court found for the defendant-appellee on all counts1 and entered the judgment appealed from. For reasons well stated by the trial court we agree that the plaintiff-appellant Canizaro failed to prove a violation of either § 12(2) or of Rule 10b-5, or to prove a case under applicable Louisiana law.

3

The judgment below was right, and is in all respects

4

Affirmed.

1

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the trial court are reported at 370 F. Supp. 282

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer