Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In Re Prudential Insurance Company America Sales Practice Litigation Agent Actions, Michael P. Malakoff, Esquire, and Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, P.C.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided January 24, 2002No. 99-5960Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRosenn, Circuit Judge
I concur and join in Part VII of the majority’s decision that the judgment of the District Court be reversed with respect to the sanctions imposed under the court’s inherent power. Because the evidence does not show that Malakoffs actions vexatiously and unreasonably prolonged the litigation in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and there is no evidence of or findings that he acted in wilful bad faith, the sanctions under that statute also should be reversed. I therefore respectfully dissent from the imposition of any sanctions.
I
Because of the many lawyers involved and their adversarial interests,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re: Cendant Corporation LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Gerald Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Benjamin G. LipmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Baker Industries, Inc. v. Cerberus Limited. Appeal of Cravath, Swaine & MooreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. CalhounCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1999