Legal Opinion

Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided September 29, 2017No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-4935Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM RE: RULE 11

Baylson, District Judge

1. Introduction

At issue is whether the Court should order Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs counsel. In this case, Plaintiff requested Defendant perform surgery on his knee, but claimed that he could not afford to meet the requirements of Defendant’s financial policy, which mandated thfit customers pay any remaining insurance deductible prior to surgery. At Plaintiffs request, Defendant agreed to perform the operation, With Plaintiff paying a small down payment towards the deductible and agreeing to pay the balance of the…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Lloyd Lieb, Trading as Specialized Cassettes v. Topstone Industries, Inc., and D. Robbins & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
  5. Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. LingleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988

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

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

Powered by the Exa API