The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
96-11305•Reich v. Lundberg, et al
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-11305
Summary Calendar
____________________
ROBERT B. REICH, Secretary,
U. S. Dept. of Labor,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
and
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS LUNDBERG,
Defendant-Counter Defendant,
SAMUEL LONGO; JOE F. WALL; JOHN SANDERS;
127 INC.; CAPITAL GENERAL CORP.,
Defendants,
and
DAVID J. BOATRIGHT,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant,
and
THOMAS LUNDBERG,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:88-CV-2470-X)
_________________________________________________________________
June 12, 1997
-- 1 of 2 --
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
- 2 -
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Subsequent to the second appeal of this action being final,
David J. Boatright moved for sanctions pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
56(g) (allowing sanctions against party presenting affidavits in
support of summary judgment in bad faith or solely for purpose of
delay). The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction.
The district court did not lack jurisdiction over the
collateral motion for sanctions. See Miranti v. Lee, 3 F.3d 925,
927 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, reversal is not required
because Boatright is not entitled to relief under Rule 56(g),in
that no affidavit in support of summary judgment was relied upon in
the voluntary dismissal of this action. See Bickford v.
International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981)
(reversal inappropriate if district court ruling of can be affirmed
on any grounds, regardless of whether those grounds were relied on
by district court).
Boatright’s motions to void removal of a party and to file a
corrected brief are DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.