Legal Mal Suit Against Bracewell Must Be Arbitrated, Despite Plaintiffs' Plea of Poverty
A husband and wife's legal malpractice suit against the Bracewell law firm will be dismissed if they don't submit to arbitration by mid-July, a federal judge has ruled, rejecting the couple's contentions that they cannot afford the arbitration fees.
June 28, 2017 at 02:31 PM
9 minute read
A husband and wife's legal malpractice suit against the Bracewell law firm will be dismissed if they don't submit to arbitration by mid-July, a federal judge has ruled, rejecting the couple's contentions that they cannot afford the arbitration fees.
U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday in Sanford v. Bracewell, denying Bracewell's motion to dismiss the case. Instead, he gave the plaintiffs until July 18 to go to arbitration and pay the initial $2,500 arbitration deposit.
As part of his ruling, he said plaintiffs Craig and Mary Jo Sanford flouted the court's instructions to turn over numerous financial records from the past five years in support of their claim that they cannot afford to have their case arbitrated. However, because the limited financial information disclosed indicated the Sanfords could afford arbitration, and nothing yet proved their claims to be meretricious, he decided to give the plaintiffs another chance at recovery through arbitration.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Ex-DLA Piper, Ballard Spahr Atty Accused of Aiding Video Game Company Founder's Misappropriation Scheme
5 minute read
With Malpractice Funds Shrinking, Eckert Seamans Brokers New Settlement in Par Funding Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
- 2Bar Report — Dec. 2, 2024
- 3The Impact of Erlinger on Predicate Felony Sentencing Statutes
- 4To Ease Partner Pay Tensions, Some Law Firms Are Seeking 'Middle Ground' in Transparency
- 5How Legal Aid and Tech Collaboration Can Bridge the Justice Gap
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
