Sharbat v. Biotherapeutics
Solomon Sharbat, Solomon Capital LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, and Shelhav Raff v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. formerly known as Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., formerly known as Genesis Biopharma, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-01391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sharbat v. Iovance, Judge Ramos denied plaintiffs’ untimely motion to reconsider Rule 11 sanctions.
The ruling left the prior Rule 11 sanctions against Solomon Sharbat, Solomon Capital LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, and Shelhav Raff in place and rejected their request to shift liability to Richard Roth. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. was affected as the opposing party.
What happened
Solomon Sharbat, Solomon Capital LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, and Shelhav Raff sued Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. After earlier rulings, the court imposed penalties on the plaintiffs and entered judgment for Iovance.
The plaintiffs asked the court to undo those penalties or shift responsibility for them to their former attorney, Richard Roth. They relied on emails they said justified reconsideration, but Iovance argued that the request was filed too late.
The court denied the motion because the plaintiffs waited more than two and a half years and did not show a good reason for the delay. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Sharbat v. Biotherapeutics · No. 1:20-cv-01391
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims against Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and indemnification. The court previously granted Iovance’s motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which addresses improper filings and litigation conduct. That ruling concerned the plaintiffs’ claim that Iovance breached a finder’s fee agreement and issues involving a request to amend the complaint. The sanctions ruling led to dismissal of the other claims. The remaining unjust-enrichment and indemnification claims were later resolved through summary judgment in Iovance’s favor, and the court entered a judgment for Iovance in the amount of $649,939.20.
Motion for Reconsideration
The plaintiffs jointly moved under Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3) to vacate or modify the Rule 11 sanctions. They also asked the court to shift all sanctions responsibility to Richard Roth, one of their former attorneys. Solomon Sharbat, acting without a lawyer, said that email correspondence from 2022 and 2023 supported reconsideration. Iovance opposed the motion as untimely and alternatively asked for additional time to respond and potentially file another sanctions motion.
Court’s Reasoning
The court held that the motion was untimely and that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for the delay. Local Rule 6.3 generally requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the challenged order. Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3), as described by the court, require such a motion to be made within a reasonable time and no more than one year after the relevant judgment, order, or proceeding. The emails identified by the plaintiffs were dated between May 26, 2022, and February 23, 2023, and the court found it clear that Sharbat already knew about them when they were sent because he and Raff were addressed or copied on the messages.
Disposition
The court DENIED the motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate docket entry 260. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.