Legal Opinion

Soo San Choi v. D'Appolonia

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 12, 2008No. 2:06cv1514PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM ORDER

DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2008, after de novo review of the record and upon due consideration of [67] the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation filed on January 9, 2008, and the parties’ objections thereto, IT IS ORDERED that [64] Defendant Dura-Bond’s Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 be, and the same hereby is, granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent it seeks a determination that plaintiffs counsel violated Rule 11 by proceeding against Dura-Bond without a factual basis for doing so. The…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Kelly N. Pryor Warren E. Spivey, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. National Collegiate Athletic AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
  5. Lloyd Lieb, Trading as Specialized Cassettes v. Topstone Industries, Inc., and D. Robbins & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pocono Mountain Charter School v. Pocono Mountain School DistrictDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Keister v. PPL Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Eakin v. Eakin (In re Eakin Bros.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API