In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of Law Firm of Sloan and Associates, P.C. (Formerly Sloan and Connelly, p.c.), and James B. Sloan

Third Circuit

In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of Law Firm of Sloan and Associates, P.C. (Formerly Sloan and Connelly, p.c.), and James B. Sloan

751 F.2d 603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 1985

Docket83-1311

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 751 F.2d 603 (In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of Law Firm of Sloan and Associates, P.C. (Formerly Sloan and Connelly, p.c.), and James B. Sloan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation. Appeal of Law Firm of Sloan and Associates, P.C. (Formerly Sloan and Connelly, p.c.), and James B. Sloan, 751 F.2d 603 (3d Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:

James B. Sloan and Sloan and Associates, P.C., in this appeal from a final judgment awarding fees from a fund in court, contend that the district court erred in denying their motion to strike from a pleading a sham and false allegation containing a defamatory statement about James B. Sloan. The motion is addressed to a single line in a 522 page Report, which was filed by Weil, Gotshal & Manges in support of objections by class members to various fee requests. The Report quotes from a memorandum of a June 16, 1981 telephone conversation between Harold Kohn and Lowell Sachnoff, which attributes the defamatory statement to Sachnoff.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike. The courts must for the most part rely upon the self-discipline of members of a learned profession for the avoidance of backbiting and the circulation of defamatory gossip. They must have discretion in determining when disputes over such matters are too trivial to warrant formal judicial attention.

The order denying the motion to strike will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:

James B. Sloan and Sloan and Associates, P.C., in this appeal from a final judgment awarding fees from a fund in court, contend that the district court erred in denying their motion to strike from a pleading a sham and false allegation containing a defamatory statement about James B. Sloan. The motion is addressed to a single line in a 522 page Report, which was filed by Weil, Gotshal & Manges in support of objections by class members to various fee requests. The Report quotes from a memorandum of a June 16, 1981 telephone conversation between Harold Kohn and Lowell Sachnoff, which attributes the defamatory statement to Sachnoff.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike. The courts must for the most part rely upon the self-discipline of members of a learned profession for the avoidance of backbiting and the circulation of defamatory gossip. They must have discretion in determining when disputes over such matters are too trivial to warrant formal judicial attention.

The order denying the motion to strike will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

751 F.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fine-paper-antitrust-litigation-appeal-of-law-firm-of-sloan-and-ca3-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack