Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01307/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01307-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Christopher Stoller (Christopher or Plaintiff) is incarcerated in the Dixon

Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois and is a “prisoner” within the meaning of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) because he was a prisoner at the time he commenced this

action. (Doc. 1.) That is, Christopher was a “person incarcerated or detained in any facility”

who had been convicted and sentenced for violations of criminal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h);

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(h). As a consequence, this case is subject to requirements under the

PLRA and this action is subject to screening by the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Christopher

Stoller has filed a number of cases in both Illinois and Arizona. 

2

 Specifically, the Christopher Stoller Pension and Profit Sharing Plan Limited, a

Bahamas corporation (CSPPSP). See CSPPSP v. Countrywide Bank, No. CV09-0002-PHXNVW. 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Stoller, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-1307-PHX-GMS (JFM)

ORDER

Christopher Stoller, “[by and through his agent, Leo Stoller,]” filed this action through

Illinois attorney, Aaron Penna, against numerous Defendants, with an Application to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis.

1

 Christopher, Leo, or an entity2 affiliated with one or both of them, have

previously sued most if not all of the Defendants in this case regarding one or more of the

Case 2:12-cv-01307-GMS--JFM Document 18 Filed 10/22/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 According to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, Leo

Stoller has been a party, since 1985, in 87 civil actions or appeals in Illinois, Missouri,

Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, California, and Arizona. He is currently a criminal

defendant in the Northern District of Illinois, case no. 1:2010CR1052. On or about April 13,

2012, Leo entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty to one count of

knowingly and fraudulently making a false statement under penalty of perjury in a Chapter

13 bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3). Sentencing is scheduled for

October 29, 2012. 

- 2 -

same four properties located in Arizona.3 Defendants Bank of America (BOA), Bryan Cave

LLP, Steven R. Smith, and Michael Werich filed a motion for leave to exceed the page limit

for their lodged “Motion, Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, for Sanctions

Against Leo Stoller, Christopher Stoller, and Their Counsel, Aaron Penna.” (Doc. 12, 13.)

In an Order filed on October 17, 2012, the Court granted the unopposed motion to

exceed the page limit. (Doc. 14.) In the motion for sanctions, Defendants ask the Court to

sanction Leo, Christopher, and Christopher’s attorney, Aaron Penna. Specifically, the

Defendants seek the following relief: (a) dismissal of this case with prejudice; (b) an award

of attorneys’ fees against Leo, Christopher, and Penna, jointly and severally; (c) restraining

Leo, Christopher, and “anyone in privity with them or acting on their behalf, from ever

bringing any further legal actions related to the properties at issue in this case against any

person or entity in any court in the United States or abroad; (d) restraining Leo and

Christopher, and anyone in privity with them or acting on their behalf, from suing any of the

Defendants or their agents, including counsel, for any alleged reason without leave of Court;

and (e) revoking Penna’s pro hac status because he has abused his privilege to practice

before this Court. Defendants argue that sanctions against Leo and Christopher are

appropriate because this is the sixth lawsuit “they” have “brought forth” related to three

properties and the second action as to a fourth property. (Doc. 13 at 3.) Defendants argue

that monetary sanctions will not deter the filing of further suits by them, and that Leo and

Christopher either have no assets or have hidden their assets. Defendants argue that Mr.

Penna should be sanctioned because he failed to exercise due diligence by filing this case

Case 2:12-cv-01307-GMS--JFM Document 18 Filed 10/22/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 Mr. Penna’s representation of Leo, as Christopher’s agent, would likely moot the

necessity to show that Christopher had the legal capacity to commence this case. 

- 3 -

after being put on notice of the case’s infirmities, including findings in previous cases that

are res judicata or collaterally estop the current claims. Because the record did not then

reflect that Leo Stoller had instigated or appeared in this action or been served with the

motion to exceed the page limit, the Court did not order Leo to respond to the motion for

sanctions. 

Defendants have filed a supplement to their motion for sanctions and motion for order

requiring Leo Stoller to respond to the motion for sanctions. (Doc. 16.) Defendants have

also filed a motion to expedite consideration of the motion seeking an order requiring Leo

Stoller to respond to the motion for sanctions. (Doc. 17.) Defendants’ motion to expedite

will be granted. The supplement to their motion for sanctions reflects that Mr. Penna

represents Leo Stoller, either in addition to Christopher or as Christopher’s agent,4

 and that

Leo has been integral to the filing of this action and is and has been aware that Defendants

intended to seek sanctions. Therefore, the Court will also grant Defendants’ motion to

require Leo Stoller to respond to Defendants’ motion for sanctions, as supplemented.

Defendants may thereafter file a reply. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) For the reasons stated in the October 17, 2012 Order, Plaintiff’s motion for

disqualification is denied. (Doc. 5.) 

(2) Defendants’ motion to expedite consideration of their motion seeking an order

requiring Leo Stoller to respond to the motion for sanctions, doc. 15, is granted. (Doc. 17.)

(3) Defendants’ motion seeking an order requiring Leo Stoller to respond to their

motion for sanctions, doc. 15, is granted. (Doc. 16.)

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:12-cv-01307-GMS--JFM Document 18 Filed 10/22/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

(4) Within 30 days from the filing date of the October 17, 2012 Order, Leo Stoller

must file a response to Defendants’ motion for sanctions, doc. 15, as supplemented, doc. 16.

Defendants must thereafter file within 15 days any reply to any response filed by Leo Stoller.

 DATED this 22nd day of October, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-01307-GMS--JFM Document 18 Filed 10/22/12 Page 4 of 4