Hanson v. Loparex Inc. et al
| Jon Hanson |
| Loparex LLC and Loparex Inc. |
| Loparex Inc. and Loparex LLC |
| Jon Hanson |
| Loparex LLC and Loparex Inc. |
| Mondi Packaging Akrosil, LLC and Mondi Packaging Minneapolis Inc. |
| 0:2009cv01070 |
| May 7, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Davis |
| Nelson |
| Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
484
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Loparex's counsel shall pay Hanson, as a Rule 11 sanction, $40,000.00; 2. Loparex's counsel shall pay Hanson, as this Court previously ordered (Doc. No. 249), for the fees and costs incurred in brin ging an earlier motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 225), $2,763.00; 3. Loparex's counsel shall pay Mondi, as a Rule 11 sanction, $5,941.60; 4. Hanson shall recover from Loparex, as taxable costs, $6,212.97; and 5. Mondi shall recover from Loparex, as taxable costs, $6,777.54 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 2/23/12. (LPH)
|
|
Filing
483
ORDER: Loparex's request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court's sanctions Order [Doc. No. 468] is DENIED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/11/11. (LPH)
|
|
Filing
462
ORDER that: 1. The remaining portion of Hansons motion for sanctions [Doc. No. 225] is DENIED IN PART (insofar as Hanson seeks the fees and costs he incurred) and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART (insofar as he seeks discovery and dismissal); 2.Hanson's motion for sanctions [Doc. No. 276] is DENIED IN PART (insofar as Hanson seeks the fees and costs he incurred) and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART (insofar as he seeks discovery, extension of the discovery deadline, and dismissal); 3. Loparex's motion fo r sanctions [Doc. No. 290] is DENIED; 4.Hanson's motion for Rule 11 sanctions [Doc. No. 416] is DENIED AS MOOT IN PART (insofar as Hanson seeks dismissal of Loparexs counterclaims), DENIED IN PART (insofar as Hanson seeks to recover all of his f ees and costs incurred in this action), and GRANTED IN PART (insofar as Hanson seeks to recover his fees and costs incurred regarding Loparexs claim for damages stemming from the audit); 5.Mondi's motion for Rule 11 sanctions [Doc. No. 448] is D ENIED AS MOOT IN PART (insofar as Mondi seeks dismissal of Loparex's counterclaims), DENIED IN PART (insofar as Mondi seeks to recover all of its fees and costs incurred in this action after August 31, 2010), and GRANTED IN PART (insofar as Mond i seeks to recover its fees and costs incurred regarding Loparex's claim for damages stemming from the audit); 6.Hanson and Mondi each may file, no later than August 29, 2011, supporting affidavits regarding the attorney fees and costs they incu rred with respect to Loparex's claim for damages allegedly due to the Ernst & Young audit; and 7. Loparex may file a responsive memorandum of no more than 5 pages no later than September 6, 2011.(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 8/15/11. (jam)
|
|
Filing
459
ORDER that: 1.Loparex's motion for relief from judgment [Doc. No. 230] is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 7/18/11. (jam)
|
|
Filing
347
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order dated December 7, 2010 317 is AFFIRMED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 1/7/11. (GRR)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
