In a qui tam action involving allegations of fraudulent student loan debt collection practices, grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit with prejudice as a sanction for the willful leaks of a document where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the “attorneys’ eyes only” agreement encompassed the Guarantee Services Agreement; 2) district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff’s attorney had willfully violated the “attorneys’ eyes only” agreement by leaking the Guarantee Services Agreement to unauthorized third parties; and 3) plaintiff’s attorney had been given a final warning after pattern of misconduct and had been warned that further misconduct was likely to result in more drastic sanctions.
Read Salmeron v. Enter. Recovery Sys., Inc., No. 08-3375
Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.Argued May 14, 2009Decided August 27, 2009
Judges
Beofre Ripple, Manion, and Tinder, Circuit Judges Opinion by Manion, Circuit Judge.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
