Comcast of Maine v. Slater

Full title: Comcast of Maine/New Hampshire, Inc. v. Joseph F. Slater, Jr

Court: United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

Date published: Oct 13, 2006

Civil No. 06-cv-142-JM (D.N.H. Oct. 13, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 06-cv-142-JM.

October 13, 2006

ORDER

JAMES MUIRHEAD, Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to an order of September 18, 2006, plaintiff's counsel and Comcast were ordered to provide all written evidence supporting the complaint and to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for the complaint if it was knowingly filed after the statute of limitations had expired.

Comcast and counsel filed a very detailed and complete set of documents which fully justified the complaint and demonstrated conclusively that the dates on which the offending equipment were surrendered were April 14 and 15, 2003, not February 4, 2003 as defendant stated at the settlement conference. Comcast and Attorneys McLaughlin and Shapiro have demonstrated that the complaint was based soundly upon fact and in full compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. In fact, it would be hard to find a case brought with a better evidentiary foundation. Counsel have demonstrated a basis for the high regard in which they are held by this judge. Comcast and counsel have shown cause why they should not be sanctioned under Rule 11.

SO ORDERED.