Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

06/29/88 Regina Construction v. Seidman & Seidman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT


June 29, 1988

REGINA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, APPELLANT

v.

SEIDMAN & SEIDMAN 1988.CDC.269 DATE FILED: JUNE 29, 1988

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Rules of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals may limit citation of unpublished opinions. Please refer to the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CA87-00509

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM DECISION

This case was considered on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 14(c). For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by the court that the order of the District Court from which this appeal has be taken be reversed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee's request for costs and fees pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 be denied.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.

MEMORANDUM

This case is before the court on Regina's appeal from the imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We reverse.

The unrebutted evidence before the district court indicates that before commencing this action, Regina did not know and had no way of knowing that any partners of Seidman & Seidman resided in Virginia. Apx. 52. Without this knowledge, Regina could properly file an action in which district court jurisdiction is founded in diversity. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 (1982). Therefore, it was improper to find a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and award sanction thereunder.

Given our disposition of this appeal, we deny Seidman's application for costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38.

19880629

© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.