Legal Opinion
Forcucci v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided February 28, 1994No. Civ. A. No. 90-13034-ADMPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (#46)
COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.
The defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (hereinafter “USF & G”) has filed a post-appeal motion seeking to have its attorneys’ fees and excess costs incurred in defending certain of the plaintiffs’ claims assessed against Carmen and Theresa Forcucci (hereinafter “the Forcuccis”) and their attorney, Mark D. Shuman, Esquire, as sanctions pursuant to Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P., and 28…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment SecuritySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. LingleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Juan E. Cruz v. Robert Savage, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Overnite Transportation Co. v. Chicago Industrial Tire Co., Appeal of Themis N. Anastos and Paul E. PeldyakCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
- Northwest Wholesale Lumber, Inc. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995