TN – LLF v NDP – Appeal – Two motions

Published TN – LLF – 2012-10-01 – ECF 40 – LLF Objection to Petition for Fees on Scribd http://t.co/x8IKNJRJPublished TN – 12-10-01 – Appeal – Appellees Opposition to Motion for Stay & Request for Sanct… on Scribd http://t.co/1QZQnrLx

The last one is a great read. And more about 28 USC 1927, a term with which Orly may soon become more familiar?…
First:  Simply put, this matter is not ripe for appellate intervention.

For example, Section III.F of the Motion is based upon a provably false factual basis. Appellants argue the Sanctions Order violates Appellants’ counsel’s due process rights because “Defendants’ motion for sanctions did not assert that Appellants lacked standing to bring their suit, as grounds for its sanctions motion” and therefore “Attorney Irion was not given any notice that he might be sanctioned for failing to establish standing.” (Motion at 6.)

Appellants’ Motion, like the original complaint in this case, has no basis in law or fact and is a continued attempt to multiply and unnecessarily prolong these proceedings. The Court’s well-reasoned and well-supported Sanctions Order should be upheld in its entirety, and Appellants’ Motion should be denied.

Below the fold