IN RE NANCY LEE WALDEN, DEBTOR. NANCY LEE WALDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BRIGHT PRODUCTS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's decisions to deny an amended counterclaim for attorney fees and a third-party complaint against an attorney.
Following a remand for factual findings, the district court denied an amended counterclaim for attorney fees against Bright Products and a third-party…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amended Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This case was remanded to the district court with directions to make factual findings and state the conclusions necessary to permit proper appellate review. The district court has supplemented the record on appeal with such findings. We affirm.
The district court granted leave to Walden to file an amended counterclaim but denied the counterclaim because it found that “it would be unjust to award costs and attorney’s fees against Bright Products, in its good faith effort to collect a just debt, because its counsel chose the wrong legal avenue.” We affirm the court’s decision to deny the amended counterclaim against Bright Products under 11 U.S.C. § 303(h)(1).
The district court also denied Walden’s motion to file a third-party complaint against Lawrence Beck, Bright Product’s attorney, under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i), because that section authorizes awards against petitioners, not their attorney. The court noted, however, that Walden might still find a remedy under Bankruptcy Rule 9011(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We affirm the court’s decision not to initiate such a proceeding but do so without prejudice to Walden’s right to do so.
The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp., 823 F.2d 937 (6th Cir. 1987)
-
Ned Wilkins v. The Eaton Corp., 790 F.2d 515 (6th Cir. 1986)
-
GAGNÉ v. Nw. Nat'l Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 309 (6th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence