No. 20-5989
Ann Karnofel v. Superior Waterproofing, Inc.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: attorney-fees attorney-sanctions civil-rights court-procedure due-process evidentiary-challenges evidentiary-hearing judicial-discretion legal-ethics legal-representation pro-se sanctions
Latest Conference:
2021-04-16
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Petitionee denied her due peocess
WAS
RioHts, Decause she is A PRo
liticant?
se
fees on Petitionee, when Peritioner did seot bet
AN oPPDR tUNiT4 TO ReSPONd At the eVidENtIARY
hEARiNG?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether it was proper to impose sanctions and attorney's fees on a pro se petitioner, when the petitioner did not have an opportunity to respond at the evidentiary hearing
Docket Entries
2021-04-19
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioner DENIED.
2021-03-24
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2021-03-16
Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing filed by petitioner.
2020-12-14
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
2020-11-18
Waiver of right of respondent Superior Waterproofing, Inc. to respond filed.
2020-10-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 9, 2020)
Attorneys
Ann Karnofel
Ann Karnofel — Petitioner
Superior Waterproofing, Inc.
Ned C Gold — Superior Warterproofing. Inc, Respondent