§Why CasetextPricing

Bluewater Music Services Corporation v. Spotify USA Inc.

MEMORANDUM in Support of 205 Emergency MOTION for Status Conference and Motion for Sanctions

13 Cited authorities

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.

    501 U.S. 32 (1991)   Cited 9,196 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts "may bar from the courtroom a criminal defendant who disrupts a trial" may "assess attorney fees when a party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons," and "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"

  2. Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper

    447 U.S. 752 (1980)   Cited 2,841 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may impose attorney's fee sanction against opposing counsel for “abusive litigation practices” only in “narrowly defined circumstances,” including where the court makes a finding that “counsel's conduct ... constituted or was tantamount to bad faith”

  3. Hutto v. Finney

    437 U.S. 678 (1978)   Cited 2,525 times
    Holding that, in the context of institutional reform litigation, the district court's "exercise of discretion ... is entitled to special deference because of the trial judge's years of experience with the problem at hand"

  4. First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Under

    307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 409 times
    Holding that the Ohio frivolous litigation statute "conflicts with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11's safe harbor provision and, therefore, should not be applied in federal court"

  5. Scott v. Health

    234 F. App'x 341 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee's placement on paid administrative leave pending an investigation did not amount to retaliation

  6. Universal Oil Co. v. Root Rfg. Co.

    328 U.S. 575 (1946)   Cited 240 times
    Holding that federal courts have inherent power to investigate whether a judgment was obtained by fraud

  7. Jones v. Illinois Central R. Co.

    617 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 88 times
    Affirming district court's imposition of sanction under § 1927 for attorney's withholding responsive documents and making misrepresentations regarding their existence

  8. Banner v. City of Flint

    99 F. App'x 29 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that it is permissible for a district court to consider evidence that was not before the magistrate judge

  9. KCI U.S., Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc.

    CASE NO. 1:14CV549 (N.D. Ohio Jul. 16, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Assessing Rule 37(b)(C) attorney fee sanction against counsel “based on [their] assistance in the creation of fabricated evidence” and lack of candor with the court

  10. Grinnell Bros., Inc. v. Touche Ross Co.

    655 F.2d 725 (6th Cir. 1981)   Cited 18 times
    In Grinnell, however, the district court did not simply fail to determine whether the sanctioned party had acted in bad faith, but rather specifically held that there was no bad faith on the part of the sanctioned party and consequently premised its award upon its inherent power to order such a recovery in the interest of justice.

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,784 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 10,879 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

  13. Section 1927 - Counsel's liability for excessive costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1927   Cited 8,830 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts the power to charge "excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred" due to "unreasonabl[e] and vexatious" conduct