Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) Appellees Motion to Strike Appellants Brief Filed 11-22-10

LIBERI v TAITZ (APPEAL - 3rd CIRCUIT) Appellees Motion to Strike Appellants Brief Filed 11-22-10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 182|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
11/30/2010 Open Document ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellees Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Law Ofc of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella to strike Appellants Reply Brief filed 11/22/2010 and Appellants Reply filed 11/29/2010 to Motion for Sanctions and to Strike Appellees Brief. Certificate of Service dated 11/30/2010. (PJB)
11/30/2010 Open Document ECF FILER: Motion filed by Appellees Evelyn Adams, Philip J. Berg, Go Excel Global, Law Ofc of Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi and Lisa M. Ostella to strike Appellants Reply Brief filed 11/22/2010 and Appellants Reply filed 11/29/2010 to Motion for Sanctions and to Strike Appellees Brief. Certificate of Service dated 11/30/2010. (PJB)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Jack Ryan on Nov 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/30/2010

pdf

text

original

 
1
Case No. 10-3000
 _______________________________________________________ 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
 _______________________________________________________ 
LISA LIBERI, et al,
Plaintiffs’ – Appellees’,v.
ORLY TAITZ, et al,
Respondents’ – Appellants’. ______________________________________________________ On Appeal from the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,Case No. 09-cv-01898 ECR Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ______________________________________________________ 
APPELLEES MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANTS REPLY BRIEF FILED11/22/2010 AND APPELLANTS REPLY FILED 11/29/2010 TO APPELLEESRESPONSE TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
 _______________________________________________________ Appellees’ respectfully move this Court to Strike Appellants Reply Brief filed November 22, 2010 as it contains matters outside the record for the Appealand contains matters that do not relate to Appellees Brief.Appellees also move to Strike Appellants Reply filed November 29, 2010 tothe Appellees Response to Appellants Motion for Sanctions as it contains matters
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110363175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2010
 
2
outside the record for the Appeal, it exceeds the allowable pages, and containsmatters that do not relate to Appellees Response. In support thereof, Appellees setforth the following:1.The instant Appeal challenges the District Court's Order GrantingDismissal of Defendants James Sundquist and Rock Salt Publishing and the Court'sOrder Severing and Transferring the underlying Case to Texas and California.2.Appellants sought Sanctions against the undersigned and theAppellees Witness, Shirley Waddell in their Opening Brief, prior to the Appelleeshaving a chance to respond to the Appellants Brief. Appellees pointed out thatAppellants Request for Sanctions in their Appellants Brief was completelyimproper and in violation of Fed. R. App. P. 38 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.3.Appellees filed their Response Brief on November 7, 2010.Appellants filed a Reply on November 22, 2010, which contained matters thatwere
not
part of the record regarding the issues being Appealed and
not
Responsive to the Appellees Brief whatsoever. In particular is Appellants Reply at pages 13 through 18 and pages 19 through 31.
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110363175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2010
 
3
4.Thereafter, Appellants filed a Motion for Sanctions against theundersigned and asked that Appellees Brief be Stricken. Appellees opposedAppellants Motion and pointed out that not only was Appellants asking for Sanctions for litigation not before this Court, the Appellants also failed to addressand/or cite any type of legal authority, statutes or cognizable arguments as to whythe Appellees Brief should be Stricken or Sanctions issued.5. In response thereto, Appellants filed a rambling Reply on November 29, 2010, which failed to address any of the issues raised in the AppelleesResponse in violation of Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(4). Moreover, Appellants Replyexceeds the page limits in violation of Fed. R. App. P. 27(d)(2).6. Furthermore, Appellants Reply as well as all their filings, containmatters which were
not
and are
not
part of the record pertaining to the issues under Appeal or the issues they attempt to raise in asking this Court for Sanctions or toStrike Appellees Brief.7. It is well established that a reviewing Court may
not
consider evidence or matters that are
not
part of the record.
SeeUnited States v. Donsky
,825 F.2d 746, 749 (3d Cir. 1987); Fed. R. App. P. 10.
See
also
 Fassett v. Delta
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110363175 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/30/2010

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->