# Morda v. Klein

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 17, 1989 · 865 F.2d 782

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8966931

## Case

- **Full name:** Domenick MORDA and Dr. Archie Bedell, on Behalf of Met-Med Associates, Ltd., and Metric Medical Laboratories, a limited partnership, (87-1550), (87-1847) v. Marvin KLEIN Leeco Diagnostics, Inc. MML, Inc. John Watkins Barbara Pace Melvin Lester BN Associates Robert Nowikowski Carl Marcus Poly-Med Consultants, Inc., (87-1550), (87-1847), and Brace Place Associates
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 17, 1989
- **Citations:** 865 F.2d 782; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 343
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Krupansky
- **Judges:** Boggs, Krupansky, Merritt
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8966931

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming denial of Rule 11 sanctions because “[i]t would be particularly difficult to fault plaintiffs for a lack of prefiling inquiry when, as here, defendants have refused plaintiffs access to material information that would bear on certain allegations made in the complaint”

## Opinion text

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the disposition of the instant case, but write separately to express my view that state courts possess concurrent jurisdiction in civil RICO cases. See Chivas Products Ltd. v. Owen, 864 F.2d 1280 (6th Cir.1988) (Krupansky, J., dissenting). Accordingly, the state court in the instant case possessed jurisdiction, the removal to federal court was proper and this court need not address the waiver analysis in the majority’s opinion, predicated on Grubbs v. General Elec. Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699 , 92 S.Ct. 1344 , 31 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).
Although I adhere to a jurisdictional rationale different from that of the majority, I concur in the majority’s analysis of the merits of the case and, accordingly, I concur in the disposition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8966931. Public record. Not legal advice.