Legal Opinion
Ferreri v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 7, 1988No. Civ. A. 88-3953PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATZ, District Judge.
Before the court are the motions to dismiss of defendants Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel (“Fox, Rothschild”) and Price Waterhouse. Both defendants seek dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In addition, Fox, Rothschild asks that the court hold an evidentiary hearing and thereafter impose sanctions on plaintiff Alfred Ferreri, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons below, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Lepere v. United Public Workers, Local 646Hawaii Supreme Court · 1995
- Riggs v. SchappellDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- Larach v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Ltd.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2010
- Ferreri v. MainardiDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- BRODIE v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2023
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.