John Margetis v. William Furgeson, Jr., et
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM: *
The district court awarded attorneys’ fees to Defendants-Appellees as a sanction against Plaintiffs-Appellants John Marget-⅛ and Alan Baron under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. On appeal, Margetis and Baron argue that the award cannot stand because Defendants-Appellees failed to comply with the “safe harbor” provision of Rule 11(c)(2). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its treatment of that issue, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Proceeding pro se, John Margetis and Alan Baron (together, Plaintiffs)…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- United States of America and Robert W. Wallace v. Claude R. Wilson, Jr., and Modes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Tompkins v. CyrCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Bennie Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc., Kmart Corporation v. Paul S. MinorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Mapes v. BishopCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Balistreri-Amrhein v. American Technology, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2022
- Callier v. PAC WESTERN FINANCIAL LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2025
- Dodson v. NicholsDistrict Court, M.D. Louisiana · 2024
- G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Osmaynez, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2025
- Gonzalez v. KijakaziDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2024
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.