Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Chris Lazarini Provides Insight on How Courts Often Deal with Pro Se Litigants

Securities Litigation Commentator


March 7, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini provided insight on the case of Williams vs. Rosenblatt Securities, Inc., in which a pro se Plaintiff claimed that he was fired in retaliation for issuing a research report suggesting that his firm's clients and high frequency trading firms were conspiring to fix securities prices and triggering an SEC investigation. Throughout the proceedings, the Court shows a great deal of patience in addressing Plaintiff's multiple motions and other filings. In the end, the Court directs Plaintiff to the Court's Manual For Pro Se Litigants and allows him a fifth opportunity to file a proper complaint, while preserving Defendants' right to move to dismiss.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

Williams vs. Rosenblatt Securities, Inc., No. 14-CV-4390 (S.D. N.Y., 2/11/16) 

*The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests with the sound discretion of the trial court.
**The major grounds for reconsideration are an intervening change in controlling authority, availability of new evidence, and the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
***Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with disfavor and a party seeking disqualification faces a high hurdle.
****The witness-advocate rule primarily concerns the trial process, and does not bar counsel's participation in pre-trial proceedings. 

Pro se Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a strategist for less than a year in 2012. He claims his termination was in retaliation for a research report he wrote suggesting that Defendant and its clients colluded with high frequency trading firms to manipulate the market price of an exchange-traded note. Shortly after Plaintiff published his report, the SEC opened an investigation into the alleged collusion. Plaintiff also claims to have been discriminated against because of the perception that he was mentally ill. In a prior opinion, the Court dismissed all claims against Defendants, except for those under Dodd-Frank, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). Following entry of that order, Plaintiff filed a "torrent" of motions, which the Court now considers.

First, the Court categorizes several of Plaintiff's motions as procedural and related to Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Court's earlier denial of Plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction. The Court states that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, comments on Plaintiff's lack of authority supporting his request and failure to adhere to the procedural rules in filing his motions, and concludes that Defendants' affidavits in opposition to Plaintiff's injunction request were properly submitted and considered. The Court examines Plaintiff's "new evidence," some of which the Court notes was previously submitted, and concludes that nothing in Plaintiff's submissions justifies the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The Court also finds no basis for awarding sanctions against any Defendant, as Plaintiff has identified no sanctionable conduct.

The Court next considers Plaintiff's motion for "joinder of claims and parties," which the Court re-labels as a motion to file a fifth amended complaint. The essence of what Plaintiff seeks, the Court states, is to add additional claims under the ADA and NYSHRL for disability discrimination and retaliation for complaining about that discrimination. Even though Plaintiff failed to submit a proposed fifth amended complaint, as required by the rules, the Court grants the motion without prejudice to Defendants' rights to raise any defense or move to dismiss. The Court instructs Plaintiff to refer to the Manual for Pro Se Litigants, comply with the Federal Rules and file "a short and plain statement of the claim," with "simple, concise and direct" allegations.

Lastly, the Court considers Plaintiff's motion to disqualify Defendants' counsel on grounds that he is a material witness. Denying the motion, the Court notes the high standard required for disqualification and points out that the witness-advocate rule primarily concerns the trial process and does not bar counsel’s participation in pre-trial proceedings. 

Many courts provide guidance to pro se litigants, and this case is an example of a judge going out of his way to give a pro se litigant the benefit of the doubt in procedural matters.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.