Barbara Sopkin v. Jill Mendelson, No. 22-1992 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1992 BARBARA SOPKIN, Citizen of Israel in Her Capacity as Assignee of Lucre Investments Ltd, General Partner of Interlase Limited Partnership, a Georgia Limited Partnership, and in a Derivative Action for Interlase Limited Partnership, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JILL C. MENDELSON, Executor of Estate of Richard S. Mendelson, Deceased; RICHARD S. MENDELSON TRUST, H. Carter Land III, Trustee; LAND, CARROLL & BLAIR, P.C., f/k/a Land Clark Carroll Mendelson Blair P.C.; ANN NICOLE KATHAN, Defendants – Appellees, and JOHN TOOTHMAN, Attorney; MADELINE TRAINOR, Attorney; JOHN DOES 1-5, Trustees of Richard S. Mendelson Trust; H. JASON GOLD, Attorney, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01146-CMH-IDD) Submitted: February 1, 2024 Decided: March 14, 2024 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara Sopkin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Draim, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Barbara Sopkin appeals the district court’s September 1, 2022, order granting Appellees’ motions for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and directing Sopkin to pay a monetary sanction. After reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we discern no reversible error. See In re Bees, 562 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Sopkin v. Mendelson, No. 1:16-cv-01146-CMH-IDD (E.D. Va., Sept. 1, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.