Legal Opinion

Koval v. Painewebber Housing & Healthcare Funding, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided November 16, 1989No. Nos. 88 C 6020, 88 C 8766PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, District Judge.

At the March 22, 1989 status hearing in this action, this Court ruled that a clear violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) dealing with discovery— the failure of counsel for Leonard Koval (“Koval”) to comply with the discovery requests from PaineWebber Housing and Healthcare Funding, Inc. (“PaineWebber”) —called for the payment under Rule 37(a)(4)' by Koval’s counsel (with no passing on to the client) of the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by PaineWebber. As for the measure of those expenses, this…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Bennie Lenard v. Robert Argento and Joseph SansoneCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1987
  3. Jardien v. Winston Network, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
  4. Roe v. City of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1984
  5. Dyson v. SposeepDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1986

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brandt v. Schal Associates, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1990
  2. Philos Technologies, Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2014
  3. In re: Joseph SeverinoUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2023
  4. Joseph J Porada, Jr.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API