From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Garr v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
22 F.3d 1274 (3d Cir. 1994)
On November 4, 1992, the Wall Street Journal published an article stating that insiders of U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (U.S. Healthcare) (defendant) sold their stock before a drop in the price of the stock. That same day, James R. Malone, Jr., a lawyer whose firm specialized in securities litigation, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Robert K. Greenfield against U.S. Healthcare and its president, based on the insiders’ sale of their stock. On November 5, 1992, Malone filed another class action against the defendants on behalf of Allen Strunk. Prior to filing the Greenfield complaint, Malone conferred with his colleague, Arnold Levin, regarding the merits of the lawsuit. Malone informed Levin of the Wall Street Journal article and stated he had researched the action and believed it was merited. On November 6, 1992, Levin and attorney Harris J. Sklar filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Scott and Patricia Garr (plaintiffs). The complaint was virtually identical to the Greenfield and Strunk complaints. On November 6, 1992, the defendants moved for Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Greenfield, Strunk, and Garr cases, claiming that the attorneys failed to conduct any factual or legal investigation and that, had they done so, they would have found there was no basis in fact or law to support the complaints. On November 8, 1992, the district court found that Malone’s inquiry into the facts was reasonable for the Greenfield and Strunk cases. However, the court found that Levin and Sklar’s lack of personal inquiry, and their reliance on Malone’s investigation, was unreasonable under the circumstances. Consequently, the court ordered Levin and Sklar to pay the defendants’ attorney’s fees, dismissed the Garr complaint, and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Levin and Sklar appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Greenberg, J.)
Dissent (Roth, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.