Legal Opinion

Pigford v. Veneman

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided April 14, 2003No. Nos. CIV.A.97-1978 (PLF), CIV.A.98-1693 (PLF)PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*3 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.

The Court has before it defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ response to defendant’s response to the motion to reopen all late claims due to mail delays, as well as plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to strike and defendant’s reply. Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, Rule 11 and Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the challenged document itself, the Court will grant defendant’s motion to strike.

In a recent filing pertaining to its motion to reopen all late claims due to mail delays, class…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stanbury Law Firm, P.A. v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
  2. In Re 2TheMart. Com, Inc. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2000
  3. Lorenzo W. Coats v. Percy PierreCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
  4. James B. McCorstin Jr. v. U. S. Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Cobell v. NortonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
  2. Llewellyn-Jones v. Metro Property Group, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2014
  3. Committee to Protect our Agricultural Water v. Occidental Oil & Gas Corp.District Court, E.D. California · 2017
  4. Cobell v. NortonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
  5. Uzlyan v. SolisDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API