Thelin v. Mitchell

1 Citing case

  1. Shine v. TD Bank Financial Group

    Civil No. 09-4377 (RBK/KMW) (D.N.J. Aug. 2, 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Denying motion to seal where party argued that disclosure of the settlement agreement would cause embarrassment because it made concessions during private negotiations that were inconsistent with its publicly espoused opinions, and that the disclosure of statements between parties during their negotiations would hurt the party's ability to negotiate with future litigants

    We hereby formally demand that you withdraw your Complaint in its entirety. (Id.). O'Hearn's email does not constitute evidence of impropriety because Defendants had a legal right to pursue attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions.See Lempert v. Singer, 766 F. Supp. 1356, 1361 (D.V.I. 1991) (finding no duress when party "threatened" counterparty by refusing to sell property when party had legal right to do so); Great Bay Hotel Casino, Inc. v. Tose, No. 91-600, 1991 WL 639131, *7 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 1991) ("[I]nstitut[ing] or threatening to institute legal action where [a] party has a legal right to take such action does not constitute duress.") (quoting Thelin v. Mitchell, 576 F. Supp. 1404, 1408 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (citations omitted); Garshman v. Universal Res. Holding, Inc., 641 F. Supp. 1359, 1372-73 (D.N.J. 1986), aff'd 824 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1987) (finding no duress when party threatened to exercise rights under contract). In other words, there is no duress when a party simply threatens to do what it has a legal right to do.