Lardas v. Grcic

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s breach of contract/fraudulent inducement action, alleging that defendants induced her into participating in global settlement that gave plaintiff’s nephew 99 percent interest in Polish shopping plaza, which was lost through alleged subsequent maneuvers by defendants when shopping plaza defaulted on loan. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue instant action, where plaintiff had no current or contingent interest in shopping plaza. Moreover, plaintiff could not assert in Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration claim that nephew was third-party beneficiary with respect to global settlement, since: (1) said argument should have been raised prior to entry of Dist. Ct.'s judgment; and (2) nephew could not be viewed as third-party beneficiary of global settlement when he was actual party to said settlement. Also, nephew’s appeal of Bankruptcy Ct. order that authorized sale of nephew’s interest in shopping plaza was moot, where: (1) nephew failed to obtain stay of said sale pending appeal; and (2) nephew failed to show that said sale was made in bad faith, where nephew merely claimed that defendants had paid too much for nephew’s interest in shopping plaza.