Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. v. Sorensen
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge.
Pending is Defendant Garret Sorensen’s Second Supplement to Rule 37 Motion (Doc. No. 22). Plaintiffs have responded.1 For *431the reasons set out below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Also pending is a Motion to Remand by Garret Sorensen (Doe. No. 7). The Government has responded,2 and Defendant Katherine Sorensen has replied.3 For the reasons set out below, the Motion is GRANTED.
I have determined that, because I am remanding the case to state court, I do not have contempt power,4 but Rules 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- The United States v. Hudson and GoodwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Willingham v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Balice v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2019
- Hill v. BrennanDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2020