Legal Opinion
In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided November 19, 2015No. Case No. 1:10 MD 2196PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*665 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
JACK ZOUHARY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Introduction
The Direct Purchaser Class moves for Rule 11 sanctions against Objector Michael *666Narkin (Doc. 1743), and Narkin moves for sanctions against Class Counsel (Doc. 1800).
Sanctions are appropriate because Nar-kin is not a class member, he could not reasonably believe that he is a class member, and he maintains his Objection for an improper purpose. To deter Narkin and those like him, Narkin shall pay Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) to the Class. This Court denies Narkin’s Cross-Motion as frivolous.
St…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- First Bank of Marietta, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2002
- Fishoff v. Coty, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
- Robert G. Jackson, Robert P. Gettys, Attorney-Appellant v. The Law Firm of O'hara, Ruberg, Osborne and TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hugh Mac Lane v. Village of Cassopolis, et al.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2025