Legal Opinion

Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. v. Sorensen

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided December 13, 2011No. 4:11CV00807-BRWPublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. The United States v. Hudson and GoodwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
  5. Willingham v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Balice v. United States of AmericaDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2019
  2. Hill v. BrennanDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API