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.

Pennar Software Corp. v. Fortune 500 Systems

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


February 7, 2006

PENNAR SOFTWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF
v.
FORTUNE 500 SYSTEMS, LTD., DEFENDANT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

And now, this 7th day of February, 2006, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 242), filed by Naren Chaganti ("Chaganti"), plaintiff's former counsel, for leave to file documents on "matters pending with this court" and of the documents filed thereto,*fn1 (see Docs. 240, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246), including a motion (Doc. 240) to stay the imposition of sanctions against Chaganti pending appeal,*fn2 arguing that "once a fine is paid it may be deemed moot and unreviewable," (see Doc. 241 at 2), and it appearing that Chaganti has a right to be heard on matters relevant to him in his individual capacity,*fn3 but that he is a material witness in this case and not permitted to file documents on plaintiff's behalf,*fn4 (see Doc. 204 (order of court dated September 15, 2005, finding that "Chaganti's role as a material witness in this case raises significant professional and ethical considerations warranting his substituion") see also Docs. 192, 199, 211, 214), and the court finding that Chaganti's compliance with the dictates of the sanction does not moot any appeal of the order imposing that sanction, see Elkin v. Fauver, 969 F.2d 48, 54 & n.4 (3d Cir. 1992) (stating that paying of fine does not moot appeal contesting fine); Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 99 (3d Cir. 1988) ("Swift disposition of a [motion for sanctions] is essential so that any ensuing challenge to it might be included with the appeal on the merits. This approach serves the interest of judicial economy without risking a significant waste of district court efforts."); see also Schering Corp. v. Vitarine Pharm., Inc., 889 F.2d 490, 495 (3d Cir. 1989) ("[A] district court, after . . . [the] filing of a notice of appeal, retains the power to adjudicate collateral matters such as applications for counsel fees and motions for sanctions . . . ."), that there does not exist a substantial likelihood of success on appeal,*fn5 and that a stay would not be in the interest of justice, see Marshall v. Berwick Forge & Fabrication Co., 474 F. Supp. 104, 108 (M.D. Pa. 1979); see also FED. R. APP. P. 8(a)(1), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion (Doc. 242) for leave to file documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. The motion (Doc. 242) is GRANTED to the extent that the documents submitted are filed by Naren Chaganti on his own behalf and related to matters relevant to Naren Chaganti in his individual capacity.*fn6 (See Docs. 240, 241.)

b. The motion (Doc. 242) is DENIED to the extent that the documents submitted relate to matters relevant to the representation of plaintiff's interests in this case. (See Docs. 243, 244, 245, 246.) The Clerk of Court is directed to STRIKE documents numbered 243, 244, 245, and 246 from the docket.*fn7

2. The motion (Doc. 240) to stay the imposition of sanctions against Naren Chaganti is DENIED.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge


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.