Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01376/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01376-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph and Judy Zizlsperger, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Maxwell & Morgan, PC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01376-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendant's motion for sanctions (doc. 14), plaintiffs' response

(doc. 17), defendant's reply (doc. 18), and defendant's notice of errata (doc. 21). Defendant

requests sanctions pursuant to Rule 11(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., alleging that plaintiffs raised

factual allegations in their complaint which they knew to be false. 

Rule 11 sanctions are to be reserved for "rare and exceptional" cases. Operating

Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). This case does

not present the facts necessary for us to exercise the "extraordinary remedy" of Rule 11. Id.

at 1345. For instance, a failure to plead sufficient facts is not a basis for sanctions under Rule

11. Here, no facts were found supporting plaintiffs' contentions that defendant sent an order

to Mr. Zizlsperger's employer to garnish an improper amount of his wages. It is possible that

plaintiffs' counsel believed such facts could have been found, however. Cf. Truesdell v.

Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 293 F.3d 1146, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding

plaintiff's counsel must have known allegations were false and sanctions were warranted).

Case 2:11-cv-01376-FJM Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Defendant requested sufficient monetary sanctions "to deter similar conduct in the

future, and to compensate Defendant for the fees, costs and resources it has been forced to

incur in filing this Motion and responding to the baseless Complaint." (Doc. 14 at 6).

Defendant previously filed a motion for attorneys' fees, seeking $17,677.50 (doc. 19). No

memorandum in support was ever filed, though, and the motion did not include any

breakdown of the fees. We have no way of knowing how much defendant incurred in filing

the motion for sanctions and responding to the complaint, as compared to other tasks such

as filing the motion for attorneys' fees. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendant's motion for sanctions (doc. 14).

DATED this 17th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01376-FJM Document 29 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 2