From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

First Capital Asset Management, Inc. v. Brickellbush, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 31, 2002
00 Civ. 5597 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2002)

Opinion

00 Civ. 5597 (LAK)

October 31, 2002


ORDER


The renewed motion of certain defendants for sanctions is denied as premature without prejudice to renewal at the conclusion of the litigation. Given the pendency of the appeal, the outcome of which might moot the basis for the renewed motion; the uncertainty as to whether pendency of the appeal deprives the Court of jurisdiction to decide the motion; and the existence of jurisdiction to determine a motion for sanctions following any affirmance, see Schlaifer Nance Co. v. Powell, Goldstein, 194 F.3d 323, 333 (2d Cir. 1999), the investment of time and effort in resolving the motion at this time would be inappropriate.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

First Capital Asset Management, Inc. v. Brickellbush, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 31, 2002
00 Civ. 5597 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2002)
Case details for

First Capital Asset Management, Inc. v. Brickellbush, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:FIRST CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., et ano., Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 31, 2002

Citations

00 Civ. 5597 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2002)