Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309/USCOURTS-azd-4_07-cv-00309-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cheryl Wells, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) No. CV 07-309 TUC FRZ (JM)

)

 v. )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Jan Kearney, et al., ) RE: SANCTIONS

)

 Defendants. )

 )

By Report and Recommendation dated August 11, 2009, the Magistrate Judge

recommended Defendants Phillip Schwartz, John Knox Village, and Broad and Cassel be

dismissed from this action [Doc. No. 101]. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that

sanctions be imposed as requested by the Defendants and recommended that the District

Court issue to the Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause why such sanctions would not be

appropriate. By Order filed September 3, 2009 [Docket No. 108], the District Court adopted

the Report and Recommendation and ordered Plaintiff to file a brief by September 18, 2009,

to show cause as to why the motions for sanctions filed by Defendants Phillip Schwartz

[Doc. No. 39], John Knox Village [Doc. No. 86], and Broad and Cassel [Doc. No. 94] should

not be granted. Plaintiff failed to file the ordered brief and, on October 9, 2009, the

Defendants were ordered to submit short memoranda with supporting documentation

identifying their respective costs and fees incurred in defending this matter. The memoranda

have been filed.

In the Magistrate Judge’s August 11, 2009, Report and Recommendation, the Court

found that Plaintiff’s claims were baseless and abusive and that Plaintiff either knew or

should have known that her claims were meritless. Having concluded that sanctions are

warranted, the Court notes that Rule 11 sanctions are not intended as a fee-shifting provision

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 122 Filed 12/02/09 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

or to compensate the innocent parties, but to deter sanctionable conduct: “A sanction

imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of

such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2);

see Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery, 281 F.3d 144, 151 (4th Cir. 2002). The sanction must

be “quantifiable with precision.” Lloyd v. Schlag, 884 F.2d 409, 413 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff’s claims, in their entirety, have been found baseless and/or outside the

Court’s jurisdiction. Despite having pursued the identical action, with similar results, in at

least two other courts, Plaintiff nevertheless insisted on filing the instant action against

nineteen separate defendants. The three defendants seeking sanctions have incurred fees of

$16,666.04 (Defendant Broad and Cassel [Doc. No. 116]);$13,873.50 (Defendant John Knox

Village [Doc. No. 117]); and $17,080.00 (Defendant Philip L. Schwartz [Doc. No. 120]).

Thus, judging by the fee documentation submitted in support of the instant motions, the

defendants in this action incurred fees in the neighborhood of $15,000 each. Multiplying that

number by the nineteen defendants results in a approximate figure of $285,000 in needless

fees squandered in this action. As sanctions are intended to deter, the Court finds that the

imposition of a sanction award totaling $15,000, with $5,000 of the sanction being allocated

to each of the three parties requesting sanctions, is appropriate. 

Recommendation

Based on the Court’s previous orders finding sanctions appropriate and on the review

of the memoranda and supporting documentation submitted by the Defendants, the

Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court, after its independent review,

enter an award of sanctions against Plaintiff totaling $15,000, with $5,000 allocated to each

of the three moving defendants. 

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 122 Filed 12/02/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 07-309-TUCFRZ. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

DATED this 2nd day of December, 2009.

Case 4:07-cv-00309-FRZ-JR Document 122 Filed 12/02/09 Page 3 of 3