Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Richard SHARIF, As Agent for Soad Wattar, Haifa Kaj and Ragda Sharifeh; Waqar Khan; Shafqut Khan; Abdul Rashid; Shaheen Rashid, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, LTD. a/k/a Win; Ralph Oats; Cathy Oats; Win Network Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

PER CURIAM:[fn*] [fn*] Pursuant to 5TH CIR, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

After this appeal was dismissed for Appellants' failure to order a transcript timely and make financial arrangements with the court reporter, it was reinstated on September 26, 2007, leaving pending in the district court Appellees' motions for at least $425,000 attorney's fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). A review of the record on appeal demonstrates that Appellants' untimely performance in this court mirrors a lengthy history in the district court of dilatoriness and hollow posturing interspersed with periods of non-performance or insubstantial performance and compliance by Appellants and their counsel, leaving the unmistakable impression that they have no purpose other than to prolong this contumacious litigation for purposes of harassment or delay, or both. The time is long overdue to terminate Appellants' feckless litigation at the obvious cost of time and money to the Defendants by affirming all rulings of the district court but remanding the case to that court for the reinstatement of its consideration of Appellees' motion for attorney's fees. In so doing, we caution Appellants that any further efforts to prolong or continue proceedings in this court, including the filing of petitions for rehearing, will potentially expose them to the full panoply of penalties, sanctions, damages, and double costs pursuant to FRAP 38 at our disposal.

Appellants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial to file a reply brief out of time. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RULING AND DETERMINATION OF APPELLEES' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SHARIF v. WELLNESS
(Apr 8, 2008)