- 6 -
plaint (initial complaint), an amended complaint (amended com-
plaint), and a second amended complaint (second amended com-
plaint), and the plaintiffs and FIG submitted a pretrial order
(pretrial order). In those submissions, the plaintiffs raised
claims against FIG for breaches of contract, indemnity, and
fraudulent misrepresentations and sought damages from FIG with
respect to those claims.5 The District Court ruled that the
pretrial order (1) superseded the various complaints that the
plaintiffs had filed in the Farmers lawsuit and (2) controlled
the determination of any damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs.
In the pretrial order, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia:
VI. Contentions of Fact
* * * * * * *
2. In December, 1980, Michael Conn, acting as
Director of CID and on behalf of all defendants, and
plaintiffs, agreed as follows (these promises are
hereinafter jointly referred to as "the agreement"):
a) That CID would assign to plaintiffs all
investigations which were assigned to outside investi-
5 In the initial complaint and in the amended complaint, the
plaintiffs alleged that the parties to the agreement at issue in
the Farmers lawsuit were FIG and "Diamond Claims" and that, as a
result of FIG's breaches of contract and fraudulent misrepresen-
tations, "plaintiff Diamond Claims has suffered lost revenue from
investigation, consultation and clerical services; lost profits *
* * all to plaintiff Diamond Claims' damage in the amount of
$5,000,000", and requested, inter alia, that the District Court
enter a judgment against FIG and in favor of "Diamond Claims" in
the amount of $5 million on account of its claims against FIG for
breaches of contract and fraudulent misrepresentations. In the
second amended complaint and in the pretrial order, references to
"Diamond Claims" in the foregoing allegations were changed to
references to "plaintiffs".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011