Erik Gundacker v. Unisys Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that, for waiver to apply, “there must be an intention that the opposing party see the work product”
• finding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the notice of appeal was filed, the district court properly decided whether sanctions were appropriate
• upholding a grant of summary judgment under subsection (c) of the Act where an employee failed to prove a refusal to participate
• noting that “because sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case, sanctions may be properly considered by the district court even when the merits are no longer before it” (citing Perkins v. Gen. Motors Corp., 965 F.2d 597, 599 (8th Cir. 1992))
• filing of notice of appeal generally divests district court of jurisdiction
• upholding sanctions where an attorney “disobeyed court orders, violated his duty as an officer of the court by making false representations, spoke to at least one member of the press concerning [the instant as well as a] sealed qui tam action, and made various threats directed at the court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).