08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain 08-3187 Volume Appendix15.pdf - Medical Supply Chain
Lee's Summit, MO 64064 816-365-1306 saml@medicalsupplychain.com Pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify I have caused a copy to be sent via electronic case filing to the undersigned opposing counsel on 4/8/08. Mark A. Olthoff, Esq., Jay E. Heidrick, Esq. Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. Twelve Wyandotte Plaza 120 W. 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Stephen N. Roberts, Esq. Natausha Wilson, Esq. Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott 34th Floor 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Bruce Blefeld, Esq. Kathleen Bone Spangler, Esq. Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. 2300 First City Tower 1001 Fannin Houston, TX 77002 via email jheidrick@stklaw.com molthoff@stklaw.com ademarea@stklaw.com S/ Samuel K. Lipari ____________________ Samuel K. Lipari 10 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5751
Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document 78 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 24 of 30 and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Sanctions may be imposed under § 1927 “for conduct that, viewed objectively, manifests either intentional or reckless disregard of the attorney’s duties to the court.” Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1512 (10 th Cir. 1987). Like Rule 11, the court must apply an objective standard, and subjective bad faith is not a necessary showing for application of § 1927 sanctions. Because § 1927 is penal in nature, an award should only be made “‘in instances evidencing a serious and standard disregard for the orderly process of justice’” and the court must be aware of the “need to ensure that the statute does not dampen attorneys’ zealous representation of their clients’ interests.” Ford Audio Video Sys., Inc. v. AMX Corp., Inc., 1998 WL 658386, at *3 (10 th Cir. Sept. 15, 1998) (quoting Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 768 F.2d 1159, 1165 (10 th Cir. 1985) (internal quotations omitted)). The court notes that, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(A), both groups of defendants requesting sanctions gave plaintiff at least twenty-one days notice before filing their motions for sanctions. “The basic requirements of due process with respect to the assessment of costs, expenses, or attorney’s fees are notice that such sanctions are being considered by the court and a subsequent opportunity to respond.” Braley, at 1514. Plaintiff responded to defendants’ motions by arguing that claim and issue preclusion do not bar plaintiff’s claims, and that defendants violated Rule 11 and § 1927 by requesting sanctions. Plaintiff chose not to withdraw or amend its complaint. The court finds that sanctions against plaintiff in the form of attorney fees and costs are appropriate and necessary pursuant to both Rule 11 and § 1927 for four reasons. First, the mere fact that plaintiff filed a nearly unintelligible 115 page complaint, which the court already found violates Rule 8, suggests that plaintiff’s complaint, and the instant suit as a whole, was brought for the purpose of harassing defendants or -24- Exb 8 08-3187 Medical Supply Chain vs. Neoforma Volume XV 5752
- Page 125 and 126: Appearance Docket of the subject li
- Page 127 and 128: were parties to the action at the t
- Page 129 and 130: 21. The petitioner had opposed tran
- Page 131 and 132: State Court and the Western Distric
- Page 133 and 134: dismissed, contradicting controllin
- Page 135 and 136: (1) Respondent’s Effect On Litiga
- Page 137 and 138: enter the market where Missouri doc
- Page 139 and 140: 58. Through the petitioner’s lobb
- Page 141 and 142: made by the respondent that would h
- Page 143 and 144: due date for a response to the defe
- Page 145 and 146: Head v. Platte County, Mo., 749 P.2
- Page 147 and 148: this court, we must call attention
- Page 149 and 150: petitioner’s appeal or to other t
- Page 151 and 152: adopted their poorly concealed fals
- Page 153 and 154: without independent review resultin
- Page 155 and 156: The action has the petitioner’s m
- Page 157 and 158: Date: February, 1 st 2008 Office of
- Page 159 and 160: permitted the repeated outcomes her
- Page 161 and 162: JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE TENTH CIRCU
- Page 163 and 164: Council. As set out in the miscondu
- Page 165 and 166: SUMMARY OF DEADLINES AND SETTINGS E
- Page 167 and 168: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH
- Page 169 and 170: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT The plaintiff
- Page 171 and 172: law); Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. B
- Page 173 and 174: generating source of the power (to
- Page 175: Judge Carlos Murguia’s prior deci
- Page 179 and 180: Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
- Page 181 and 182: Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
- Page 183 and 184: Case 2:05-cv-02299-CM-GLR Document
- Page 185 and 186: enter the market. The Defendants ta
- Page 187 and 188: (1) the attendance of a witness or
- Page 189 and 190: 598. The USA PATRIOT Act reaffirmed
- Page 191 and 192: 611. Defendants’ actions were wil
- Page 193 and 194: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH
- Page 195 and 196: admitted was incorrect about the US
- Page 197 and 198: government need only prove that the
- Page 199 and 200: Accordingly, one who opts into or p
- Page 201 and 202: other elements of the Section 1962(
- Page 203 and 204: y circumstantial evidence and the l
- Page 205 and 206: dealers or potential dealers. The p
- Page 207 and 208: Kilroy reveal the law firm was the
- Page 209 and 210: US Department Of Justice Post Trial
- Page 211 and 212: of Liggett; Ernest Pepples of B&W;
- Page 213 and 214: Certificate of Service I certify th
- Page 215 and 216: 2. I know first hand the consequenc
- Page 217 and 218: Army officer and an African America
- Page 219 and 220: Social and Rehabilitation Services
- Page 221 and 222: answered the complaint and sent add
- Page 223 and 224: shared. The stress aggravated their
- Page 225 and 226: objective of eliminating liability
Lee's Summit, MO 64064<br />
816-365-1306<br />
saml@medicalsupplychain.com<br />
Pro se<br />
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE<br />
I certify I have caused a copy to be sent via electronic case filing to the undersigned opposing counsel on<br />
4/8/<strong>08</strong>.<br />
Mark A. Olthoff, Esq.,<br />
Jay E. Heidrick, Esq.<br />
Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C.<br />
Twelve Wyandotte Plaza<br />
120 W. 12th Street<br />
Kansas City, MO 64105<br />
Stephen N. Roberts, Esq.<br />
Natausha Wilson, Esq. Nossaman,<br />
Guthner, Knox & Elliott<br />
34th Floor<br />
50 California Street<br />
San Francisco, CA 94111<br />
Bruce Blefeld, Esq.<br />
Kathleen Bone Spangler, Esq.<br />
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.<br />
2300 First City Tower<br />
1001 Fannin<br />
Houston, TX 77002<br />
via email<br />
jheidrick@stklaw.com<br />
molthoff@stklaw.com<br />
ademarea@stklaw.com<br />
S/ Samuel K. Lipari<br />
____________________<br />
Samuel K. Lipari<br />
10<br />
<strong>08</strong>-<strong>3187</strong> <strong>Medical</strong> <strong>Supply</strong> <strong>Chain</strong> vs. Neoforma <strong>Volume</strong> XV 5751
Change language