Legal Opinion

CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas

Decided June 9, 1992No. Civ. No. A-90-CA-533PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

NOWLIN, District Judge.

Before the Court are: Plaintiff CJC Holdings’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed on April 20, 1992; Defendant Wright & Lato’s oral motion for Rule 11 sanctions; and, Defendant Wright & Lato’s Petition for Attorneys’ Fees, filed June 8,1992. On May 18, 1992, this Court held a hearing to consider the Plaintiff’s motion. On May 12, 1992, this Court ordered that the attorneys be prepared to discuss at the hearing whether Rule 11 sanctions would be appropriate for the filing of the Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background

On December 9, 1991, this Court entered a default judgment…

2Cases cited27 opinions

Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

Cjc Holdings, Inc., D/B/A Artcarved, a Corporation v. Wright & Lato, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993