Freedman, Levy, Kroll & Simonds v. Mendelson
District Court, E.D. Virginia
1Opinion of the Court
*277 MEMORANDUM OPINION
BRINKEMA, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. For the reasons discussed herein, this motion will be DENIED.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, the law firm Freedman, Levy, Kroll, & Simonds and individual attorneys Patrick J. Kearney and Emil Hirsch, first filed this Declaratory Judgment action against defendant Richard Mendelson on June 2, 2000. They filed an amended complaint on June 27, 2000.
This action arises from a tangle of bankruptcy and patent litigation before this and other courts concerning Interlase Limited Partnership. See…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Hormel v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. ForstCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Howard L. Dickerson v. State of AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thomas v. Lodge No. 2461 of District Lodge 74 of the International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace WorkersDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2004
- Lester v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 2018