The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Looper, Reed, Mark & McGraw, Inc. (LRMM) and Donald Looper's motion for sanctions against American Recovery Corporation (ARC). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 37 sanctions because many of LRMM's requests for admissions called for legal conclusions, which ARC reasonably replied it could neither admit nor deny. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions because ARC's argument that the arbitrator's award should not be given preclusive effect was not unreasonable, and it was
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
American Recovery v. Looper Reed Mark, 4th Cir. (1998)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Looper, Reed, Mark & McGraw, Inc. (LRMM) and Donald Looper's motion for sanctions against American Recovery Corporation (ARC). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 37 sanctions because many of LRMM's requests for admissions called for legal conclusions, which ARC reasonably replied it could neither admit nor deny. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions because ARC's argument that the arbitrator's award should not be given preclusive effect was not unreasonable, and it was
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Looper, Reed, Mark & McGraw, Inc. (LRMM) and Donald Looper's motion for sanctions against American Recovery Corporation (ARC). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 37 sanctions because many of LRMM's requests for admissions called for legal conclusions, which ARC reasonably replied it could neither admit nor deny. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions because ARC's argument that the arbitrator's award should not be given preclusive effect was not unreasonable, and it was
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views3 pages
American Recovery v. Looper Reed Mark, 4th Cir. (1998)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Looper, Reed, Mark & McGraw, Inc. (LRMM) and Donald Looper's motion for sanctions against American Recovery Corporation (ARC). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 37 sanctions because many of LRMM's requests for admissions called for legal conclusions, which ARC reasonably replied it could neither admit nor deny. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying LRMM's motion for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions because ARC's argument that the arbitrator's award should not be given preclusive effect was not unreasonable, and it was
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN RECOVERY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOOPER, REED, MARK AND MCGRAW, INCORPORATED; DONALD R. LOOPER, Defendants-Appellants, No. 97-2622 and RICHARD V. SECORD; COMPUTERIZED THERMAL IMAGING, INCORPORATED; DAVID B. JOHNSTON; FLUOR DANIEL, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-1323) Submitted: September 15, 1998 Decided: October 5, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert C. Gill, Lynn M. Jordan, SLAVIT & GILL, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Arthur W. Tifford, Lawrence R. Metsch, Miami,
Florida; Edward T. Waters, FELDESMAN, TUCKER, LEIFER,
FIDELL & BANK, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Looper, Reed, Mark & McGraw, Inc. (LRMM), and Donald R. Looper appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for sanctions against American Recovery Corporation (ARC). We affirm. The background facts of this case are fully set forth in our earlier opinion in American Recovery Corporation v. Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc., 96 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 1996). After the arbitrator's award in favor of Computerized Thermal Imaging (CTI), ARC elected to continue with its suit against Defendants LRMM and Looper. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, but denied Defendants' motion for sanctions. Defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motion for sanctions. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendants' motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. See Stillman v. Edmund Scientific Co., 522 F.2d 798, 801 (4th Cir. 1975). Many of the requests for admissions which LRMM complains of call for legal conclusions, which ARC reasonably replied that it could neither admit or deny. One of the requests which LRMM contends ARC unreasonably denied was actually not denied by ARC; rather, ARC clarified and explained its position as to that point. Thus, even assuming that ARC later "prevailed" on these matters, "the true test under Rule 37(c) is not whether a party prevailed . . . but whether he acted reasonably in believing that he might prevail." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) cmt. Likewise, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants' motion to impose sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), 2
28 U.S.C. 1927 (1994), or the court's inherent authority. See
Brubaker v. Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363, 1374 (4th Cir. 1991). ARC's argument that the arbitrator's award should not be given preclusive effect was not unreasonable. Whether LRMM breached its fiduciary duty to ARC by representing an individual ARC director and officer in contract negotiations with CTI is reasonably viewed as a separate issue from whether the individual director himself usurped a corporate opportunity of ARC or whether CTI breached the consulting agreement. Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for ARC to go forward with the litigation against LRMM. We affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Beneficial Consumer Discount Company v. David R. Poltonowicz John Poltonowicz The Internal Revenue Service of The United States of America, 47 F.3d 91, 3rd Cir. (1995)
Latrelle Campbell v. Pierce County, Georgia, by and Through The Board of Commissioners of Pierce County, Troy Mattox, Foy Kimbrell, and Larry Thomas, 741 F.2d 1342, 11th Cir. (1984)
Resolution Trust Corporation As Receiver For First Federal Savings Bank of Diamondville, Wyoming v. William Kimbrough Love, 36 F.3d 972, 1st Cir. (1994)
United States of America Ex Rel. Arthur Rudick v. Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense, and Stanley Resor, Secretary of The Army, 412 F.2d 16, 2d Cir. (1969)
Derrick R. Parkhurst, Donald Gee, Kenneth Dale Nicodemus, Kevin P. Seavolt, Michael Bradley Westover, Patrick John McAtee Jeff Hallock, and Kevin Charles Porth v. Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penetentiary Director, Also Known as Judy Uphoff, in Her Official Capacity Wyoming Department of Corrections State Penitentiary Warden, Also Known as Duane Shillinger, in His Official Capacity, 13 F.3d 406, 10th Cir. (1993)