Legal Opinion
Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 23, 2003No. 00 Civ. 3151 (RWS)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant Hoffman & Pollok, now known as Hoffman Pollok & Pickholz LLP (“HPP”) has moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint of pro se plaintiff Steven Jude Hoffenberg (“Hoffen-berg”) and permanently enjoining Hoffen-berg from filing any further frivolous lawsuits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is converted into a motion for summary judgment and as such it is granted.
Hoffenberg has cross-moved under Rule 60(a) and (b) seeking recusal. This motion is denied as…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kermanshah v. KermanshahDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Carruthers v. FlaumDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Tenamee v. SchmuklerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- Hoffenberg v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2004
- Federal Insurance v. Distinguished Properties Umbrella Managers Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.