Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Arnold v. ADT Security Servs., Inc., No. 09-3565

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on December 14, 2010 2:45 PM

Sanctions Order Affirmed

In Arnold v. ADT Security Servs., Inc., No. 09-3565, plaintiffs' appeal from the district court's order (i) granting defendant's motion to compel further discovery responses and requiring plaintiffs to pay $10,988.00 in attorneys' fees and a $100 per day fine and (ii) denying their motion for reconsideration and their motion to stay the imposition of sanctions, the court affirmed where 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant had attempted to confer with plaintiffs in good faith; and 2) plaintiffs failed to show, with clear and convincing evidence, that defendant engaged in a fraud or misrepresentation that prevented them from fully and fairly prosecuting their case.

 

As the court wrote:  "Cathy Arnold, Cynthia Braxton, GaBrielle Doran, and others not joined in this appeal (collectively, plaintiffs) brought this suit against their former employer, ADT Security Systems, and supervisor, Dinesh Chand (collectively, ADT). The district court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims against ADT and ordered that plaintiffs (excluding Arnold and Braxton) and plaintiffs' counsel, Elle Sullivant, be jointly and severally liable to pay ADT $12,488.00."

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options