KERNOSH v. FRIEGHT CONCEPTS, INC. et al

Filing 121

ORDER/OPINION THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FREIGHT CONCEPTS, INC. (DOC. NO. 93) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 11/12/15. 11/12/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO UNREP AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA l~ I THEODORE J. KERNOSH, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6069 v. DE JAGER CONSTRUCTION, INC.; FREIGHT CONCEPTS, INC.; ABC BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-10 (fictitious names) and JOHN DOES 1-10 (fictitious names) Defendants DE JAGER CONSTRUCTION, INC., Third Party Plaintiff v. SUGAR HILL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, LLC Third Party Defendant THEODORE J. KERNOSH, Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-3325 ACCEL GROUP, INC. Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this day of November, 2015, upon consideration of the following documents: Plaintiffs Motion for SanC:tions Against Defendant Freight Concepts, Inc. (Docket No. 93) filed September 22, 2015; Ans\ver to Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions and Memorandum of Law in Support of Answer to Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions (Docket Nos. 95 and 95-4) filed by Defendant, Freight Concepts on September 24, 2015; Plaintiff Theodore J. Kemosh's Reply Brief in Further Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Freight Concepts, Inc. (Docket No. 99) filed October 1, 2015; and Plaintiff Theodore J. Kemosh's Supplemental Reply Brief in Further Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Freight Concepts, Inc. (Docket No. 114) filed November 4, 2015; upon consideration of a sanctions hearing on the record with counsel for all interested parties on November 5, 2015, and for the reasons expressed in the foregoing Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is DENIED. BY THE fOURTĀ· J-.lc___ HENRY S. PERKIN, United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?