David S. Vogel v. Juan G. Catala

I respectfully dissent. In my view, Mr. Vogel, by virtue of his own explicit judicial admissions, was statutorily barred from recovering the sum of money at issue in this case.

The following facts are uncontested. And, in my judgment, these facts should be dispositive of this case.

Paragraph 7 of Mr. Vogel’s amended complaint reads in its entirety as follows:

“On or about April 9, 2007, Defendant called Mr. Vogel in order to request that Mr. Vogel lend money to Defendant. At that time, Defendant was on vacation in Las Vegas, Nevada. Defendant said that he (Defendant) had lost a substantial sum…