Monday, March 22, 2010

Judge Seitz Imposes Rule 11 Sanctions.

JudgeSeitzRule11

Sorry, I couldn't think of any way to make that headline funny.

19 comments:

  1. Seems to me that the order is a bit over the top - they don't appear to have lied to the court, or affirmatively misled the court...does anybody know they were aware of the controlling caselaw? I agree on the settlement thing, but isn't that subsumed in the whole motion to vacate?

    What if they cited the case law and wanted to make an argument on appeal?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why didn't the judge allow them to try and prove up the fraudulent inducement allegations before sanctioning them?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well your article helped me altogether much in my college assignment. Hats off to you enter, wish look audacious for the duration of more related articles promptly as its sole of my pick topic to read.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Those lawyers got CARVERED!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. CARVER RULES!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dippy move to not allow amendment of complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looked at the firms' website- Carver has not updated his pic.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Carver has a classic, clean look. Why mess with it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @3:52, Who are you -- his personal stylist?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 4:17, No. President of his fan club.

    ReplyDelete
  11. IT'S CARVER TIME

    THE LAWYERS WERE CARVERIZED!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good to the last drop, folks. Yes, indeed. These guys came into court knowing that their grounds for vacating the judgment were frivolous. They've been involved with the case, every step of the way. Toyne was a "Best Lawyer" for 2008 for getting the restitution award on behalf of the same clients. Maybe he can show that to the Bar grievance committee.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good to the last drop, folks. Yes, indeed. These guys came into court knowing that their grounds for vacating the judgment were frivolous. They've been involved with the case, every step of the way. Toyne was a "Best Lawyer" for 2008 for getting the restitution award on behalf of the same clients. Maybe he can show that to the Bar grievance committee.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dunno' what I did there. Damn.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Does an inducement claim depend on how clear or unambiguous the release is?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lawyers are fighting back. They filed a motion for rehearing saying Seitz got it wrong. Not likely!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Never smart to tell Judge Seitz she made a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Read the motion for reconsideration and it raises interesting issues. Looks like Judge Seitz made a mistake.

    ReplyDelete