Legal Opinion
In Re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided May 12, 2000No. 98CV1998PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALLS, District Judge.
Defendants E. Kirk Shelton; Henry Sil-verman, Martin Edelman, John Snodgrass, James Buckman, Michael Monaeo, Stephen Holmes, Robert Kunisch and E. John Ro-senwald, Jr. (the “HFS defendants”); and Bartlett Burnap, T. Barnes Donnelley, Walter Forbes, Christopher McLeod, Burton Perfít, Stanley Rumbough, Jr., and Robert Tucker (the “CUC defendants”) move for sanctions against plaintiff Martin Deutch; Brett Cebulash, the signer of the motion papers; and all other attorneys whose names appear for plaintiff on the motion papers. See HFS Brf. at 15. For the reasons…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Albert J. Gaiardo and Patricia Gaiardo, His Wife v. Ethyl Corporation, A/K/A Ethyl Corporation, Visqueen DivisionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Bensalem Township v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Company Crum & Forster Managers Corporation, (Ill)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Gerald Zuk v. Eastern Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Benjamin G. LipmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Williams v. Giant Eagle Markets, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Edberg v. Neogen Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Gordon v. United Continental Holding, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2014
- In Re: Cendant Corporation Litigation Martin Deutch, Derivatively on Behalf of Cendant Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Keister v. PPL Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
- Young v. SmithDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.