BEAVER RESOURCES CORPORATION v. BRAWAND

Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Western District BEAVER RESOURCES CORPORATION v. BRAWAND

BEAVER RESOURCES CORPORATION v. BRAWAND

Plaintiff:	BEAVER RESOURCES CORPORATION
Defendant:	WILLIAM BRAWAND
Case Number:	1:2008cv00215
Filed:	July 29, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Erie Office
County:	Elk
Presiding Judge:	Sean J. McLaughlin
Nature of Suit:	Torts to Land
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Torts to Land
Jury Demanded By:	Defendant

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 25, 2014	Filing 197 MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; an appropriate Order follows (details more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/25/2014. (bdk)
July 22, 2014	Filing 190 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the various motions filed by the parties in the above-captioned matter which are presently pending before the Court, (Docket Nos. 165 , 169 , 170 , 173 , 178 , 181 , 185 , 187 ), the various briefs in opposition thereto (Docket Nos. 187, 188), the long and contentious history of the litigation between the parties before former Chief Judge Sean J. McLaughlin and the undersigned in this federal case, as well as the state court litigation which th e parties have cited repeatedly and at length throughout these proceedings, and finding that the relief sought via the pending motions are neither supported by law nor appropriately awarded in light of all of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is hereby ordered that: 1. Mr. Albert Beaver, Jr.'s Motions to Appear Specially and/or to Substitute Counsel for the purpose of pursuing sanctions (Docket No. 170 , 185 ) are denied (details more fully stated in said Order); 2. Accordi ngly, Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions (Docket Nos. 178 , 181 ) are stricken from the record for the same reasons. In any event, the Court further finds that the Motions for Sanctions are procedurally defective because the safe harbor provis ions of Rule 11(c)(2) have not been met and the sanctions sought due to an alleged failure of proof of an affirmative defense asserted by Defendant are otherwise without merit; 3. Any further submissions by Mr. Beaver will be stricken from the reco rd; 4. Defendant's Motions for Contempt (Docket Nos. 165 , 169 , and 173 ) are denied as the Court finds that such Motions are likewise without merit. To this end, the Court agrees with Plaintiff's position in response to the first Mo tion for Contempt 165 that the Court encouraged the parties to engage in continuing settlement negotiations amongst themselves and does not believe that Mr. Beaver's efforts to attempt to settle the matter with Mr. Brawand, an individual he ha s known for longer than the twenty-five plus years they have been litigating these disputes, amounts to a violation of the prior order or arises to a level sufficient to substantiate a sanction of contempt. Likewise, the Court does not believe that Mr. Beavers contacting the Prothonotary in Elk County to obtain documents he believes are useful to this litigation arise to contemptuous activities such that the second Motion for Contempt 169 is denied. Finally, with respect to the Third Motion for Contempt 173 , although Mr. Beaver's pursuit of the sanctions motions and attempts to appear "specially" are clearly improvident, made without counsel and are wholly without merit, all of Mr. Beaver's activities took place af ter Defendant Brawand initiated these contentious and protracted proceedings by filing the first two unsupported motions for contempt at which point this matter divulged into a flurry of reckless motions filed by Mr. Beaver. Therefore, Defendant' ;s Motions are denied; that the parties and counsel shall avoid any future filings of this nature because such litigation conduct is intolerable and distracts from the duties of the Court and the parties to secure the "just, speedy, and inexpen sive determination of" this case, whether it result in a final adjudication through a dispositive motion or at trial; and, that the Court's Telephone Status Conference set for 7/23/14 at 11:00 a.m. remains as scheduled. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/22/14. (jg)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 25, 2014

Filing 197 MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that this case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; an appropriate Order follows (details more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion). Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/25/2014. (bdk)

July 22, 2014

Filing 190 ORDER indicating that upon consideration of the various motions filed by the parties in the above-captioned matter which are presently pending before the Court, (Docket Nos. 165 , 169 , 170 , 173 , 178 , 181 , 185 , 187 ), the various briefs in opposition thereto (Docket Nos. 187, 188), the long and contentious history of the litigation between the parties before former Chief Judge Sean J. McLaughlin and the undersigned in this federal case, as well as the state court litigation which th e parties have cited repeatedly and at length throughout these proceedings, and finding that the relief sought via the pending motions are neither supported by law nor appropriately awarded in light of all of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is hereby ordered that: 1. Mr. Albert Beaver, Jr.'s Motions to Appear Specially and/or to Substitute Counsel for the purpose of pursuing sanctions (Docket No. 170 , 185 ) are denied (details more fully stated in said Order); 2. Accordi ngly, Plaintiff's Motions for Sanctions (Docket Nos. 178 , 181 ) are stricken from the record for the same reasons. In any event, the Court further finds that the Motions for Sanctions are procedurally defective because the safe harbor provis ions of Rule 11(c)(2) have not been met and the sanctions sought due to an alleged failure of proof of an affirmative defense asserted by Defendant are otherwise without merit; 3. Any further submissions by Mr. Beaver will be stricken from the reco rd; 4. Defendant's Motions for Contempt (Docket Nos. 165 , 169 , and 173 ) are denied as the Court finds that such Motions are likewise without merit. To this end, the Court agrees with Plaintiff's position in response to the first Mo tion for Contempt 165 that the Court encouraged the parties to engage in continuing settlement negotiations amongst themselves and does not believe that Mr. Beaver's efforts to attempt to settle the matter with Mr. Brawand, an individual he ha s known for longer than the twenty-five plus years they have been litigating these disputes, amounts to a violation of the prior order or arises to a level sufficient to substantiate a sanction of contempt. Likewise, the Court does not believe that Mr. Beavers contacting the Prothonotary in Elk County to obtain documents he believes are useful to this litigation arise to contemptuous activities such that the second Motion for Contempt 169 is denied. Finally, with respect to the Third Motion for Contempt 173 , although Mr. Beaver's pursuit of the sanctions motions and attempts to appear "specially" are clearly improvident, made without counsel and are wholly without merit, all of Mr. Beaver's activities took place af ter Defendant Brawand initiated these contentious and protracted proceedings by filing the first two unsupported motions for contempt at which point this matter divulged into a flurry of reckless motions filed by Mr. Beaver. Therefore, Defendant' ;s Motions are denied; that the parties and counsel shall avoid any future filings of this nature because such litigation conduct is intolerable and distracts from the duties of the Court and the parties to secure the "just, speedy, and inexpen sive determination of" this case, whether it result in a final adjudication through a dispositive motion or at trial; and, that the Court's Telephone Status Conference set for 7/23/14 at 11:00 a.m. remains as scheduled. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/22/14. (jg)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BEAVER RESOURCES CORPORATION v. BRAWAND
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: BEAVER RESOURCES CORPORATION
Represented By:	Paul F. Burroughs
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 ]
Defendant: WILLIAM BRAWAND
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?