Habib v. Thurston, 517 A.2d 1 (1986)

Citation: Habib v. Thurston, 517 A.2d 1 (1986)
Parent Document: Habib v. Thurston, 517 A.2d 1 (1986)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 1986-10-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1995493/habib-v-thurston/ ↗

Full Text

676 chars

Rule 37(a)(4) provides that a court shall award expenses of a motion to compel to a successful movant “after opportunity for hearing.” Courts have held, however, that this requirement may be satisfied by allowing both parties to express their positions to the court in writing. Persson v. Faestel Investments, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 668, 670 (N.D.Ill.1980); Addington v. Mid-American Lines, 77 F.R.D. 750, 752 n. 1 (W.D.Mo.1978); see also Hayden Stone, Inc. v. Brode, 508 F.2d 895, 897 (7th Cir.1974). We conclude that the landlord had an adequate opportunity to oppose the tenant’s motion and may not now complain that the trial court failed to hold a separate eviden-tiary hearing.

Other Sections in This Document (332)

Full Text