Sharif v. Wellness International Network, Ltd.

273 F. App'x 316
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 8, 2008
Docket07-10834
StatusUnpublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 273 F. App'x 316 (Sharif v. Wellness International Network, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sharif v. Wellness International Network, Ltd., 273 F. App'x 316 (5th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

After this appeal was dismissed for Appellants’ failure to order a transcript timely and make financial arrangements with the court reporter, it was reinstated on . September 26, 2007, leaving pending m the district court Appellees’ motions for at least $425,000 attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). A review of the record on appeal demonstrates that Appellants’ untimely performance in this court mirrors a lengthy history in the district court of dilatoriness and hollow posturing interspersed with periods of non-performanee or insubstantial performance and compliance by Appellants and their counsel, leaving the unmistakable impression that they have no purpose other than to prolong this contumacious litigation for purposes of harassment or delay, or both. The time is long overdue to termmate Appellants’ feckless litigation at the obvious cost of time and money to the Defendants by affirming all rulings of the distnct court but remanding the case to that court for the reinstatement of its consideration of Appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees. In so doing, we caution Appellants that any further efforts to prolong or continue proceedings in this court, including the filing of petitions for rehearing, will potentially expose them to the fall panoply of penalties, sanctions, damages, and double costs pursuant to FRAP 38 at our disposal. 1

AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RULING AND DETERMINATION OF APPELLEES’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Appellants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial to file a reply brief out of time. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

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

Related

Sharif v. Newman
N.D. Illinois, 2022
In re: Salem
N.D. Illinois, 2017
In re Sharif
564 B.R. 328 (N.D. Illinois, 2017)
Sharifeh v. Fox (In re Sharif)
549 B.R. 485 (N.D. Illinois, 2016)
Richard Sharif v. Wellness International Networ
498 F.3d 751 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif
727 F.3d 751 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 F. App'x 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharif-v-wellness-international-network-ltd-ca5-2008.