Sharif v. Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd.©www.mlmlegal.com
Welcome to the MLMLegal.com Legal Cases Project. Here you will find hundreds of legal cases in the fields of MLM, Direct Selling, Network Marketing, Multilevel Marketing and Party Plan. The cases span federal and state courts as well as administrative cases from the FTC, FDA, IRS, SEC, worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, etc.The intent of the MLMLegal.com Cases Project is strictly educational, and, to provide insight into the legal issues and cases for an industry that spans the globe in upwards of 150 countries with sales volume exceeding $100 billion and distributor involvement in the tens of millions. MLMLegal.Com does not promote or endorse any company. MLMLegal.Com offers no value judgments, either pro or con, regarding the companies profiled in legal cases.
Jeffrey A. Babener, principal attorney in the Portland, Oregon, law firm Babener & Associates, and editor of www.mlmlegal.com, represents many of the leading direct selling companies in the United States and abroad.
www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com
Sharif v. Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd.
Case: Sharif v. Wellness International Network, Ltd. (2008)
Subject Category: Federal cases, Civil procedure
Agency Involved: Private civil suit
Court: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Synopsis: A second request for an appeal was dismissed because the Appellant was engaging in tactics that made it appear that the purpose of the litigation was harassment. The Appellants were warned that additional such behavior may result in sanctions.
Legal Issue: Will a second request for an appeal be granted after the first request was dismissed for failure to conform with the court imposed deadlines?
Court Ruling: The 5th Circuit found the record indicated Appellants were prolonging litigation for the purpose of harassment and delay and denied the request.
Practical Importance to Business of MLM/Direct Sales/Direct Selling/Network Marketing/Party Plan/Multilevel Marketing: Brining litigation for the purposes of harassment or delay may result in court sanctions such as double costs.
Sharif v. Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd., 273 Fed. Appx. 316 (2008): A second request for an appeal was dismissed because the Appellant was engaging in tactics that made it appear that the purpose of the litigation was harassment. The Appellants were warned that additional such behavior may result in sanctions.
www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com www.mlmlegal.com
Richard SHARIF, As Agent for Soad Wattar, Haifa Kaj and Ragda Sharifeh; Waqar Khan; Shafqut Khan; Abdul Rashid; Shaheen Rashid, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL NETWORK, LTD. a/k/a Win; Ralph Oats; Cathy Oats; Win Network Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-10834 Summary Calendar. April 8, 2008.
*317 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:05-CV-1367).
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Opinion
PER CURIAM: *
After this appeal was dismissed for Appellants' failure to order a transcript timely and make financial arrangements with the court reporter, it was reinstated on September 26, 2007, leaving pending in the district court Appellees' motions for at least $425,000 attorney's fees pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). A review of the record on appeal demonstrates that Appellants' untimely performance in this court mirrors a lengthy history in the district court of dilatoriness and hollow posturing interspersed with periods of non-performance or insubstantial performance and compliance by Appellants and their counsel, leaving the unmistakable impression that they have no purpose other than to prolong this contumacious litigation for purposes of harassment or delay, or both. The time is long overdue to terminate Appellants' feckless litigation at the obvious cost of time and money to the Defendants by affirming all rulings of the district court but remanding the case to that court for the reinstatement of its consideration of Appellees' motion for attorney's fees. In so doing, we caution Appellants that any further efforts to prolong or continue proceedings in this court, including the filing of petitions for rehearing, will potentially expose them to the full panoply of penalties, sanctions, damages, and
double costs pursuant to FRAP 38 at our disposal. 1
AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RULING AND DETERMINATION OF APPELLEES' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Parallel Citations
2008 WL 943014 (C.A.5 (Tex.))