Legal Opinion
Davis v. Target Stores Division of Dayton Hudson Corp.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided March 16, 2000No. Civ. PJM 99-776PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MESSITTE, District Judge.
I
Defendant Target Stores Division of Dayton Hudson Corporation (“Target”) has moved for an award of partial attorney’s fees and costs against Plaintiff Fred L. Davis, Jr. on the grounds that Davis continued to prosecute his claim of employment discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., after it became clear through discovery that the claim was frivolous. 1 Davis opposes the award, arguing that Target’s Motion seeks to circumvent the safe harbor procedures of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Hutchinson v. StatonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Chaudhry v. GallerizzoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- MacArthur v. San Juan CountyDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2005
- Belcher v. W.C. English Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2015
- The Estate of Mary Sue Welsh v. Michaels Stores, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2021
- Zuraf v. Clearview Eye Care, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2017