IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 25, 2010
CRAIG A. BOWES, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
SOUTH WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Slomsky, J.
On August 12, 2010, this Court issued an Opinion and Order (Doc. Nos. 31, 32) granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8), denying Defendants' Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 17), and Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to place the case in civil suspense (Doc. No. 19). In ruling on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, the Court noted that Defendants did not file a supporting memorandum of law. In fact, Defendants did file a timely Brief in Support of the Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions, which was included as Attachment Three (3) to the Motion. The Court has reviewed this supporting brief and the ruling on the Motion for Sanctions will not be changed. After reviewing the Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. No. 17, at Attachment 3), the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs' civil rights complaint was filed for an improper purpose or that it was frivolous, Total Television Entm't Corp. v. Chestnut Hill Vill. Assoc., 145 F.R.D. 375, 382 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Once again, sanctions will not be imposed.
JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.