Re: 7/19/00 - Cybersmear Defendant Reportedly Fights Back With Rule 11 Sanctions Motion
July 19, 2000
Cybersmear Defendant Reportedly Fights Back With Rule 11 Sanctions Motion
Eric Turkewitz, an attorney representing Defendant Francis Worst in a lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that included cybersmear claims against various defendants reports on a rather unique circumstance that has arisen in that proceeding. The lawsuit involved is Sovereign Partners Limited Partnership, Dominion Capital Fund Ltd. and Stephen M. Hicks v. Restaurant Teams International, Inc., ConSyGen, Inc., Stanley Swanson, Curtis Swanson, Thomas Dreaper, Francis Worst, et al. (S.D.N.Y., proposed amended complaint filed on Sept. 28, 1999). According to Mr. Turkewitz, it seems that after other defendants in the suit settled the claims against them, Defendant Worst refused settlement overtures and moved for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Worst reportedly seeks US$300,000 in sanctions against the plaintiffs and their counsel in the case.
cybersecuritieslaw.com
[Issue 1, Volume 33]
=====
Rule 11
...
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
...
www2.law.cornell.edu[jump!3A!27rule11!27]/doc/{@126}? |
