Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 261 views

    In Re: Arthur Alan Wolk, No. 04-13959-B

    Uploaded by

    Ted Frank
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Arthur Alan Wolk's petition for a writ of mandamus against the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court also denied Wolk's motions to file documents under seal and to exceed the page limit. The court granted the respondent's motions for monetary sanctions against Wolk for filing frivolous motions. Wolk was ordered to show cause why he should not be further sanctioned for failing to disclose previous related filings and for making unsubstantiated accusations.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    In Re: Arthur Alan Wolk, No. 04-13959-B

    Uploaded by

    Ted Frank
    261 views6 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Arthur Alan Wolk's petition for a writ of mandamus against the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court also denied Wolk's motions to file documents under seal and to exceed the page limit. The court granted the respondent's motions for monetary sanctions against Wolk for filing frivolous motions. Wolk was ordered to show cause why he should not be further sanctioned for failing to disclose previous related filings and for making unsubstantiated accusations.

    Original Description:

    Eleventh Circuit decision.

    Original Title

    In re: Arthur Alan Wolk, No. 04-13959-B

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Arthur Alan Wolk's petition for a writ of mandamus against the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court also denied Wolk's motions to file documents under seal and to exceed the page limit. The court granted the respondent's motions for monetary sanctions against Wolk for filing frivolous motions. Wolk was ordered to show cause why he should not be further sanctioned for failing to disclose previous related filings and for making unsubstantiated accusations.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    261 views6 pages

    In Re: Arthur Alan Wolk, No. 04-13959-B

    Uploaded by

    Ted Frank
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Arthur Alan Wolk's petition for a writ of mandamus against the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court also denied Wolk's motions to file documents under seal and to exceed the page limit. The court granted the respondent's motions for monetary sanctions against Wolk for filing frivolous motions. Wolk was ordered to show cause why he should not be further sanctioned for failing to disclose previous related filings and for making unsubstantiated accusations.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 6

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT 4F APPEALS

    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT


    IMM IN CLERKS OFFICE - --..z
    i1 R
    !1& COURT Of APPEAL
    SEP 2 8 7nn4 91MUR C3RMld

    - a
    L
    04-13959-B f ~ 2004
    ..~ . . . . . :. :w :.. ,:. ., .
    'THOMAS K. KMN
    CLERK
    11 . RE :

    ARTHUR ALAN WOLK,

    Petitioner.

    -------------------------

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the


    United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Georgia
    --------------------------

    BEFORE : TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges .

    BY THE COURT:

    The "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" is DENIED .

    The "Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and All Motions

    or Pleadings Pertaining Thereto, Under Seal" is DENIED .

    The "Motion for Leave to Amend Mandamus Petition and Motion fox Leave

    to Exceed page Limit" is DENIED .


    Respondent's motion for monetary sanctions against Petitioner for filing a

    frivolous motion, based on Petitioner's filing of a motion to seal this appeal which

    failed to disclose that the Court has previously denied a substantially similar motion

    to seal in Appeal No . 04-11490, Petitioner's previous mandamus petition arising from

    these same proceedings, is GRANTED as to entitlement .

    Respondent's motion for sanctions against Petitioner for filing a frivolous

    motion to amend his mandamus petition and to exceed the page limit is GRANTED

    as to entitlement, as nothing in the motion to amend explains why Petitioner failed

    to include the constitutional argument in his original petition .

    With respect to Respondent's entitlement to sanctions against Petitioner,

    Respondent may file an application for appellate attorney's fees which comports with

    11th Cir. R. 39-2 within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order.

    In addition, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14)

    days of the date of entry of this order why he should not be sanctioned for (i) failing

    to disclose in his current filings the existence of Appeal No. 04-11490, as well as the

    Court's disposition thereof; (ii) repeatedly asserting in his filings that he was not the

    attorney handling Ta for v. Teled e, even though the district court docket reflects

    his apparent status as lead plaintiffs counsel in that case ; (iii) failing to support the

    allegations in his mandamus petition with specific citations to the record ; and {iv} for
    making unsubstantiated and demeaning accusations against Respondent and its

    counsels in his reply in support of his motion to amend his mandamus petition .

    1 A federal court has the inherent authority to sanction a lawyer appearing


    before it
    who engages in bad faith conduct. See, Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co . . Inc ., 293
    F .3d 1306, 1320 (11 th Cir. 2002) . "Case law is replete with instances
    where an attorney has
    been sanctioned for his or her own unsubstantiated accusations and
    demeaning,
    condescending, and harassing comments directed at opposing counsel."
    Id. at 1325
    (citations omitted).

    -3-
    United States Court of Appeals
    RECEINT"i=S OWE Eleventh Circuit
    ¬~° :~ `' - nga 56 Forsyth Street, N.W .
    Atlanta, Georgia 30303
    Thomas K. Kahn Far rules and forms visit
    Clerk FFP 2 8 2004 www.cal1.uscourts.gov
    rk September 27, 2004
    AnL ::k
    MEMOR.AND TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

    Appeal Number : 04-13959-B


    Case Style : In Re: Arthur Alan Wolk
    District Court Number: 00-01741 CV-JEC-1

    The following action has been taken in the referenced case :

    The enclosed order has been ENTERED.

    Sincerely,

    THOMAS K. KAHN, Clerk

    Reply To: Dwight Briggs {404} 335-61$1

    MOT-2 (03-2004)
    ` RECEIVED !N CLERK'S OFFICE

    SEP 2 8 2004
    Wni
    ~-

    Luther D. Thomas
    Clerk, U.S . District Court
    75 Spring St., Room 2211
    Atlanta GA 34303

    September 27, 2004

    Appeal Number : 04-13959-B


    Case Style : In Re: Arthur Alan Wolk
    District Court Number: 00-01741 CV-JEC-1

    CC: Arthur Alan Wolk

    CC: Luther D. Thomas

    CC: Henry R. Chalmers

    CC: Robert Leonard Rothman

    CC: John Kevin Griffin

    CC: Timothy L. Alger

    CC: Mary S. Thomas

    CC: Gerald Phillip Ruleman

    CC: Lauren G. Danielson

    CC: David E . Azar

    CC: John B. Quinn

    CC: Laura W. Speed-Dalton

    CC: Jason T. Sehneider

    CC: Philip J. Ford

    CC: 3. David Hopkins, III

    CC: Thomas T. Strueber

    CC: Corliss S. Lawson


    CC: Christopher Baker Hall

    CC: William Bradley Hill, Jr.

    CC: Hon. Julie E. Carnes

    CC: Administrative File

    You might also like