In a brief full of ad hominem attacks on me and my client, class counsel asked for an $8.3 million appeal bond, requesting millions of dollars of expenses that the D.C. Circuit had held were unavailable under Fed. R. App. Proc. 7. We noted the class counsel's omission of binding precedent and other misleading citations in opposing the request and asked for sanctions. Yesterday, the district court denied the motion, and asked class counsel to submit declarations on the question of whether sanctions were appropriate: "the plaintiffs' motion and reply brief go beyond fair advocacy and border on misrepresentation." [McClatchy; earlier]
Court rejects appeal bond in Cobell v. Salazar
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Third Circuit argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen
- Dewey v. Volkswagen oral argument tomorrow
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- CCAF Seventh Circuit briefing on derivative shareholder suit standards
- Day v. Persels & Associates
- EPA carbon dioxide rules in DC Circuit
- Bad typography evidence of bad faith?
- Apple class actions
- Cobell v. Salazar oral argument in DC Circuit
- Herzfeld & Rubin, Volkswagen, and Stockholm Syndrome
- Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
- Behind the paywall
- "A Public Letter From the Cobell Lawyers Prompts Ethics and Harassment Concerns"
- Around the web, January 27