Legal Opinion
Keister v. PPL Corp.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 29, 2015No. 4:13-cv-00118PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge
The Rule 11 Sanctions Motion and the Rule 54 Motion for Fees disposed of herein both spring from the filing of a baseless employment discrimination suit. Donald P. Russo, Esquire, the lawyer who brought the underlying claims, is no stranger to Rule 11 discipline. Other federal judges have described his work as “dubious” and “troubling.” In fact, just one week before filing his opposition briefs to Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions here, Mr. Russo was sanctioned in the form of public reprimand by the Honorable Robert D. Mariani of this…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Young v. SmithDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- Betz v. SattesonDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
- Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Brian Burnett, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2018
- Bruce v. City of Pittston, PennsylvaniaDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- Douglas Bruce v. City of Pittston, PennsylvaniaDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.