BLUST

BLUST

Not Yet Classified:	PETER FRANCIS BLUST
Case Number:	2:2023mc00160
Filed:	December 20, 2023
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Nature of Suit:	Miscellaneous
Jury Demanded By:	None

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 21, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
December 21, 2023	Filing 2 ORDER THAT RESPONDENT FILE WITH THIS COURT, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER, AN ANSWER INFORMING THIS COURT OF ANY CLAIM BY THE RESPONDENT, PREDICATED UPON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN LOCAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 83.6 II D, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF IDENTICAL DISCIPLINE BY THIS COURT WOULD BE UNWARRANTED, AND THE REASONS THEREFORE. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 12/21/23. 12/21/23 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE. (go)
December 20, 2023	Filing 1 Copy of Order from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 8, 2023, having received no response to a rule to show cause why Respondent Peter Francis Blust should not be placed on temporary suspension, the Rule is made absolute, and Respondent is placed on temporary suspension. See Pa.R.D.E. 214(d}(2). Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent's right to petition for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to request accelerated disposition of any charges underlying this Order pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 214(d}(4) and (f)(2} are specifically preserved. This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline. See Pa.R.D.E. 402(c)(2) (providing an exception to the confidentiality requirement of Rule 402 when "the investigation is predicated upon a conviction of the respondent-attorney for a crime"). (go)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 21, 2023

Filing 2 ORDER THAT RESPONDENT FILE WITH THIS COURT, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER, AN ANSWER INFORMING THIS COURT OF ANY CLAIM BY THE RESPONDENT, PREDICATED UPON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN LOCAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 83.6 II D, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF IDENTICAL DISCIPLINE BY THIS COURT WOULD BE UNWARRANTED, AND THE REASONS THEREFORE. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 12/21/23. 12/21/23 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE. (go)

December 20, 2023

Filing 1 Copy of Order from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 8, 2023, having received no response to a rule to show cause why Respondent Peter Francis Blust should not be placed on temporary suspension, the Rule is made absolute, and Respondent is placed on temporary suspension. See Pa.R.D.E. 214(d}(2). Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent's right to petition for dissolution or amendment of this Order and to request accelerated disposition of any charges underlying this Order pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 214(d}(4) and (f)(2} are specifically preserved. This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline. See Pa.R.D.E. 402(c)(2) (providing an exception to the confidentiality requirement of Rule 402 when "the investigation is predicated upon a conviction of the respondent-attorney for a crime"). (go)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BLUST
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Not yet classified: PETER FRANCIS BLUST
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?