Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00001/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00001-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Gary Greenburg; Barbara Greenburg, 

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, 

vs.

Roberts Properties, Ltd.; et al., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0001-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Gary Greenburg forged material documents, submitted them to the

Court, then lied to the Court repeatedly about whether he had committed the forgery. These

are the basic conclusions that the Court has reached following an evidentiary hearing

prompted by a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11 ("Rule 11") and the Court's inherent power to police itself against fraud (Doc.

140). In the pages that follow, the Court will explain the basis of those conclusions and the

penalties that will befall Plaintiff as a result. 

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 16
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

In that Order, the Court mistakenly referred to Plaintiff Gary Greenburg's wife,

Barbara Greenburg, as a plaintiff. She is not, as Defendants' request to add her as a party

plaintiff was denied. (Doc. 82.) She is, however, a counterdefendant in the claims filed by

Roberts Properties, Ltd., Craig Suddarth and Cherie Suddarth (Doc. 85). 

2

It is important to note that Plaintiff attached the original Second and Third Plans to

his verified Complaint. (Compl., Ex. 11, 14.) In other words, those documents bear what

Plaintiff alleges to be Suddarth's actual signature, not just a photocopy thereof.

- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND

The Court has described the relevant factual background in its Order dated December

23, 2005 (Doc. 157).1

 To briefly summarize: Before signing a lease to become a tenant in

Defendants' RV park ("Resort"), Plaintiff received written permission from the Resort's

manager, Defendant Craig Pat Suddarth ("Suddarth"), to construct a mobile home according

to certain specifications (the "First Plans"). Plaintiff did not construct his home according

to those specifications, and said it was because Suddarth gave written approval for two sets

of modifications to the original plans (respectively, the "Second Plans" and "Third Plans").

Defendants contend that Suddarth did no such thing, but that Plaintiff forged Suddarth's

signature on the Second and Third Plans. When Defendants informed Plaintiff that his home

must be constructed in accordance with the First Plans, Plaintiff refused to comply, and this

action eventually followed. 

On September 26, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action under Rule

11 and the Court's inherent power to protect itself against fraud. The motion asserted that

Plaintiff had forged Suddarth's signature on the Second and Third Plans, perjured himself by

attaching those documents to his verified Complaint, then perjured himself again during his

deposition by testifying under oath that the documents in question bore Suddarth's actual

signature.

The Court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of whether Suddarth's

signatures on the Second and Third Plans were forgeries.2

 That hearing lasted part of two

days, January 9, 2006 and February 3, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 16
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

While the Complaint has been amended three times, the Court will continue to cite

to the original Complaint, as it contains the original documents at issue - the First Plans

(Exhibit 5), the Second Plans (Exhibit 11), and the Third Plans (Exhibit 14).

4

The Court will not summarize Flynn's impressive credentials here, as a full

description is available in the transcript of the evidentiary hearing (Doc. 177). Even Plaintiff

did not dispute that Flynn is one of the country's foremost authorities on handwriting

analysis.

5

To assist in his presentation, Flynn prepared a series of Microsoft Powerpoint slides,

many of which consisted of images captured by his digital microscope. Copies of those

slides were provided to Plaintiff and to the Court. 

- 3 -

II. THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

A. Defendants' Evidence

Defendants called only one witness, but the testimony of a second witness is part of

the record. Attached to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is the declaration of Suddarth, in

which he states under oath that while he signed and approved the First Plans (Compl.3

 Ex.

5), he never signed or even saw the Second or Third Plans.

Defendants' sole witness was William J. Flynn, a forensic document examiner who

was permitted to testify as an expert.4

 Flynn personally examined Exhibits Eleven and

Fourteen to the Complaint on two occasions. On the first occasion, he examined the

signatures with a microscope, and also made a digital scan of the signatures. On the second

occasion, he used a digital microscope with capture capability. His analysis of the signatures

led him to the conclusion that both were scanned then printed onto the respective documents

using an inkjet printer. He also concluded the word "Approved" above the signatures was

scanned then inkjet printed.

These conclusions were based on the following5

:

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 3 of 16
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

6

The exhibit numbers refer to the number assigned to the document in the original

Complaint, not by defense counsel at the evidentiary hearing.

7

Citations to the record refer to the official transcript of the evidentiary hearing. (Doc.

177.)

8

Plaintiff stipulated that he personally initialed Exhibit 11, and drew a vertical line to

the left of his initials. (R. at 34.)

- 4 -

• inkjet printers, which impart ink by spraying it onto the page, leave overspray marks

that can be seen on Exhibit 116

 when the words "Approved" and "Pat" are magnified

using the digital microscope. (R. at 32-33.)7

• the ink used in inkjet printers is liquid, and when it comes into contact with a piece

of paper, a phenomenon known as wicking occurs, in which the raised fibers of the

paper act just like the wick of a candle and pull the ink away from where it was

sprayed. (R. at 32, 35.) One could observe the phenomenon of wicking by placing

a drop of red dye on a piece of paper towel, as the dye would noticeably expand

outward as it was absorbed away from the initial drop. (R. at 35-36.)

• Both the word "approved" and the word "Pat" on Exhibit 11 show signs of wicking

under magnification. (R. at 32, 35.)

• Overspray and wicking would not have occurred had a rubber stamp been used to

create the word approved. (R. at 33.) Overspray and wicking would also not have

occurred if the words had been created with a ballpoint pen, as were Plaintiff's

initials "GG" on Exhibit 11. Ballpoint pen ink is highly viscous, and it does not

wick. (R. at 36.) Nor does ballpoint ink produce overspray (R. at 37.)

• When Plaintiff placed his initials on Exhibit 11 in red ballpoint ink, he made a

vertical line to the left of the first "G."8

 Viewed microscopically, there is black

inkjet ink beneath that line, in what Flynn hypothesized was an attempt by Plaintiff

to cover the fact that he had scanned Suddarth's signature then printed it onto the

page with an inkjet printer. (R. at 37.) According to Flynn, the inkjet line was "an

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 4 of 16
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

- 5 -

artifact of the cut and paste process" that Plaintiff employed to place the word "Pat"

onto the page. (R. at 39.) 

• The "cut and paste process," according to Flynn, involved Plaintiff cutting out the

word "Pat" from one document, pasting it onto another, then scanning that

document. (R. at 39.) The vertical line appears to the left or to right of the pasted

portion of the document, "depending on the movement of the scan lamp." (R. at

39.)

• Prior to the hearing, Flynn conducted an experiment to see if he could reproduce the

phenomenon of the vertical line. He cut out his own signature, pasted it onto

another document, scanned it, and a dark bar appeared to the right of his name. The

reason the bar appeared to the right of his name and not the left, as in Exhibit 11, is

because of the direction the scan light was moving. (R. at 59.)

• Exhibits 5 and 14 do not contain a vertical line near Suddarth's signature. Flynn

theorizes that this is because whereas Exhibit 11 was created by physically cutting

out "Pat", placing into the document, then scanning it, Exhibits 5 and 14 were

created using an "electronic cut and paste where a graphic of the signature was

transferred. When you transfer a graphic, the scanning process doesn't take place,

so there would be no artifacts of that type." (R. at 60-61.)

• Exhibit 14 contains the words "Approved" and "Pat S" both of which show the signs

of inkjet printing: wicking and overspray. (R. at 44.)

• There are other indications that "Pat S" was scanned and printed onto Exhibit 14.

Digital scanners function at a certain resolution, which is measured in dots-per-inch.

For example, if a scanner functions at 300 dpi, it cannot absorb "a piece of relevant

data that's closer than three-hundredths of an inch." (R. at 46.) The same is true of

printers, so if a printer prints at 300 dpi, it cannot produce dots closer than threehundredths of an inch together. (R. at 46-47.)

• When Exhibit 14 is viewed at a certain level of magnification, one is able to see the

distance between the dots. When one views "Pat S" at such a level, one can actually

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 5 of 16
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

9

In fact, when Plaintiff testified, he did not dispute that he placed the line beneath "Pat

S" along with the "x" after Suddarth had already signed the document.

- 6 -

see the lines that were created either by the scanning, the printing or a combination

of the two. (R. at 47.) The lines are so close together that it would be impossible

for a human being to create them by hand. (R. at 48.) 

• In contrast, the initials "G.G.", the date "9/3/2003", and the line beneath "Pat S" and

the "x" to the left of it were written in ballpoint ink. (R. at 42.) None of those penstrokes, when analyzed at a high-level of magnification, reveal any scan-lines,

wicking or overspray.

• Because "Approved" and "Pat S" were printed onto the page, they were likely on the

page before the line with the "x" to the left of it was drawn on with ballpoint pen.

In other words, Plaintiff likely drew that line to create the appearance that "Pat S"

had signed on the line, when in fact "Pat S" was already on the page at the time the

line was drawn. (R. at 42-43.)9

• The signature that appears on Exhibit 5 and the signature that appears on Exhibit 11

are identical - they "exactly overlay" and the "dash after the 'Pat' aligns in the same

position. (R. at 52-53.) "The probability of that happening in two individually

made signatures is null." (R. at 55.) The explanation for the perfectly coincident

nature of the two signatures is that they are both inkjet reproductions. (R. at 56.)

• "Exactly overlay," is a "term of art" as "no copy is ever going to be exactly the same

as the parent," and it is impossible to tell how many generations passed between the

respective copies of the signatures. (R. at 53.)

• Flynn made no mention of observing any indentation on or near Suddarth's alleged

signatures.

Flynn was confident in his conclusions: "There are many levels of certainty that I can

ascribe to my reports if I'm not certain, and I'm a reasonably conservative examiner in that

regard. But in this particular case, I'm 100 percent certain. There's no doubt in my mind this

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 6 of 16
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

- 7 -

is a scanned signature of 'Pat S' that has also been machine rendered using an inkjet printer."

(R. at 48; see also R. at 105.)

Plaintiff cross-examined Flynn, and failed to cast doubt on any of Flynn's conclusions.

Plaintiff did, however, elicit the following information:

• Flynn considered and rejected the possibility that Suddarth's signatures were created

with a felt tip pen. A felt tip pen, according to Flynn, could not have been used to

create the microscopic striations that were created in the scanning or printing

process. (R. at 66.)

• Flynn considered and rejected the possibility that the overspray that Flynn identified

on Exhibits 11 and 14 could have already been present on the page at the time

Suddarth allegedly signed the documents. Overspray is produced "where droplets

continue to fly after the inkjet head cuts off." (R. at 71-72.) Because of this

phenomenon, overspray appears on only one side of the printed signature. (R. at 71-

72.) It would be "miraculous" and "impossible" for the overspray droplets to appear

"at exactly the right positions ahead of time before the signature was signed." (R.

at 72.)

• Flynn considered and rejected the possibility that the wicking was actually hair, as

Flynn examined the document under a microscope and observed wicking, not hair.

(R. at 75.)

• It is worth noting that at no point in his cross-examination of Flynn did Plaintiff ask

Flynn whether he noticed any indentations on, near, or beneath Suddarth's alleged

signatures.

B. Plaintiff's Evidence

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 7 of 16
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

10Before calling himself to the stand, Plaintiff called his wife, Barbara Greenburg, and

Clarence Farr, a former assistant manager at the Resort. Neither of those witnesses provided

any testimony that bore on the issue before the Court.

- 8 -

Plaintiff's evidence, all of which was presented on the second day of the evidentiary

hearing, consisted mainly of his denial that he fabricated Suddarth's signature on Exhibits 11

and 14.10 Other notable aspects of Plaintiff's testimony included the following:

• Plaintiff urged the Court to examine Exhibits 11 and 14 for signs of indentation that

were caused when Suddarth allegedly signed the documents. Such indentations,

according to Plaintiff, would be inconsistent with marks made by an inkjet printer,

which is non-impact.

• Plaintiff claimed that he personally witnessed Suddarth placed the "Approved"

stamp on Exhibit 11, then sign his name to that document.

• Plaintiff changed his position with regard to whether he personally witnessed

Suddarth sign and stamp Exhibit 14. Whereas before the hearing, Plaintiff's position

was that he saw Suddarth sign and stamp Exhibit 14, at the hearing, Plaintiff

testified that he retrieved the document from Suddarth's office after it had already

been stamped and signed.

• Plaintiff admitted that, on Exhibit 14, he placed an "x" and a line beneath Suddarth's

alleged signature after the signature was already on the page. 

• Plaintiff attempted to refute Flynn's testimony that as one makes successive copies

of an image, each successive copy may degrade slightly in quality. Plaintiff

submitted into evidence Exhibit 18, which is five copies of the word "Gary" written

by Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, there is no degradation that occurred.

• Plaintiff attempted to refute Flynn's testimony that overspray occurs on inkjet

printers. Plaintiff submitted into evidence Exhibit 19, a magnified "A" that he

allegedly created with an inkjet printer. According to Plaintiff, there is no

overspray.

• Plaintiff did not offer any expert testimony to refute any of Flynn's conclusions.

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 8 of 16
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

11In his response to a recent motion filed by Defendants, Plaintiff has made it

abundantly clear that the presence of indentations on Exhibits 11 and 14 is the centerpiece

of his case as to why he is not a forger. (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Mot. to Continue at 1-2, arguing

against a continuance in light of undisputed evidence of "depression indentation marks in the

paper as a result of the signatures in question having been written with a writing instrument

such as a pen. Universally known that an inkjet printer never leaves an imprint such as this

on paper [sic]."). 

- 9 -

C. The Court's Conclusions

Plaintiff takes too literally the maxim that justice is blind, for justice would actually

have to be blind not to see that the signatures Plaintiff has tried to pass off as authentic are

in fact forgeries. 

While the explanation of this conclusion could begin with Flynn's persuasive

testimony and Plaintiff's failure to refute any of it, the Court will begin with Plaintiff's

despicable behavior between the two days that the evidentiary hearing occurred. As

mentioned above, the first day of the hearing was January 9, 2006 and the second day was

February 3, 2006. During the interim, the Court file, which contained the original Complaint

and Exhibits 11 and 14 thereto, was in the Court's possession the entire time, with one

exception: when Plaintiff requested and viewed the file on January 13, 2006. On the second

day of the hearing, the Court was somewhat surprised that Plaintiff made the argument for

the first time that Suddarth's signatures were authentic because they left an indentation in the

page created by the force of the pen.11 

This argument was surprising because one would think that, if there were in fact

indentations, Plaintiff would have cross-examined Flynn on that point, and attempted to

undercut Flynn's conclusion that the signatures had been created with an inkjet printer. This

argument was also surprising because the Court had closely examined Exhibits 11 and 14

before the first day of the hearing and had not noticed any indentations. 

Low and behold, after the second day of the hearing, the Court examined Exhibits 11

and 14 and found that indentations had magically appeared near Suddarth's signature. One

explanation as to how these indentations were made is that Suddarth pressed down so hard

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 9 of 16
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

- 10 -

on the page when he signed his name that the indentations appeared not only on the signature

page but on the two pages beneath it. 

This explanation, however, is foreclosed by the fact that the indentations were not

present on Exhibits 11 or 14 before Plaintiff examined the file on Friday, January 13, 2006.

It is also foreclosed by the fact that the indentations do not perfectly correspond with

Suddarth's alleged signature. Rather, the indentations appear at a noticeable distance from

the lines allegedly constituting Suddarth's signature. In the case of Exhibit 11, where the

letters "a" and "t" (part of "Pat") are particularly small and the lines particularly intricate, the

indentations do not even remotely correspond to the actual lines. Also, the Court finds it

inconceivable that had the markings actually been created by Suddarth himself, Flynn, one

of the country's leading handwriting experts who examined the documents for nearly two

hours, would not have noticed them. 

The only plausible explanation is that Plaintiff checked out the Court file and used

some sort of pointed instrument to create the appearance that Suddarth had actually signed

the documents. Plaintiff's hastiness was one of the many reasons of his undoing. He did not

take proper care to insure that the indentations he was making in the page corresponded to

the forged signature. 

Needless to say, Plaintiff's actions fatally undermine his argument that the signatures

are authentic. Even without that behavior, Plaintiff's credibility was in shambles:

• He offered no explanation for Flynn's persuasive testimony that the signatures

were created by an inkjet printer. 

• In particular, he offered no explanation for the pattern of overspray and no

explanation for the wicking.

• Plaintiff offered no explanation for the striations in Suddarth's alleged signature

which reveal that the signature was scanned then printed.

• Plaintiff offered no plausible explanation for the presence of the vertical line to

the left of his name on Exhibit 11. It is obvious to the Court that Plaintiff placed

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 10 of 16
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

- 11 -

that vertical line next to his name to conceal the "artifacts" of the scanning

process.

• On Exhibit 14, Plaintiff admitted to placing a line and an "x" beneath Suddarth's

alleged signature after Suddarth had already signed the document. It is clear that

Plaintiff placed the line there to further the illusion that Suddarth had signed the

document after the line and the "x" had been drawn.

• Plaintiff offered no plausible explanation for the fact that the signatures as well

as the dash to the right of the signatures on Exhibits 5 and 11 perfectly overlay.

While some minute differences can be observed, the Court accepts Flynn's

testimony that these differences are attributable to the photocopying process.

• Plaintiff's attempt to refute this argument with Exhibit 18, his experiment about

the effects of photocopying on an image, is rejected. Because it is not known

what type of copier or what type of copying process Plaintiff employed to forge

Suddarth's signature, evidence from a different photocopier, perhaps of higher

quality, is worthless. 

• Plaintiff, by his own admission, has worked as a consultant in the computer

industry for thirty years, and is deeply familiar with printers and scanners. To

conduct the relatively simple forgery process was entirely within the realm of

Plaintiff's knowledge and experience.

In sum, while Plaintiff testified that he is not a perjurer or a forger, the Court

concludes otherwise. There is no doubt whatsoever that Suddarth's signatures on Exhibits

11 and 14 are forgeries and that Plaintiff is the forger. 

III. CONSEQUENCES

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 11 of 16
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

- 12 -

"Courts cannot lack the power to defend their integrity against unscrupulous

marauders; if that were so, it would place at risk the very fundament of the judicial system."

Aoude v. Mobile Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1119 (1st Cir. 1989).

A. The Court's Inherent Authority

Courts have an array of sanctions that may be imposed in response to abusive

litigations practices. See Sun World, Inc. v. Lizarazu Olivarria, 144 F.R.D. 384, 390 (E.D.

Cal. 1992). Such sanctions include dismissal or default judgment and the payment of the

opposing parties' costs and attorneys' fees. Id. (citing Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762

F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1985); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.

1983); United States Med. Enters., Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 1986); Thompson v.

Housing Auth. of the City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); Halaco Eng'g

Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir. 1988)). See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford

Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245-46, 64 S. Ct. 997, 1001 (1944); Combs v. Rockwell Int'l

Corp., 927 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal of an action, pursuant to Rule 11

and the court's inherent powers, where the plaintiff, after permitting his lawyer to materially

alter the plaintiff's deposition transcript, swore under penalty of perjury that he had reviewed

the transcript and made the corrections personally); Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1115 (affirming

dismissal where the plaintiff forged a purchase agreement "that formed the complaint's

centerpiece," attached it to his complaint, then swore to its authenticity in depositions and

propounded discovery requests based on the assumption that it was authentic).

To dismiss a case under its inherent powers, the Court must consider

(1) the existence of certain extraordinary circumstances, (2) the

presence of willfulness, bad faith, or fault by the offending party, (3)

the efficacy of lesser sanctions, (4) the relationship or nexus between

the misconduct drawing the dismissal sanction and the matters in

controversy in the case, . . . 

Halaco Eng'g Co., 843 F.2d at 380; Sun World, Inc., 144 F.R.D at 390.

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 12 of 16
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

- 13 -

Plaintiff's actions have satisfied all of the above criteria. First, this case presents

extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff attached the forged documents to his Complaint,

verified that Complaint, lied about its authenticity in his deposition, filed a second action

against Defendants stemming from similar allegations, tampered with and altered the Court's

file, and perhaps most appallingly, sat on the witness stand, looked the Court in the eye, and

lied about all of it.

Second, as should be clear from the above discussion, Plaintiff's actions were willful

and in bad faith. Third, lesser sanctions would be ineffective. This action was premised

upon Plaintiff's lies; it has been marred every step of the way by Plaintiff's lies, and he has

shown no remorse. An attempt to excise the fraudulent aspects of Plaintiff's case from the

non-fraudulent ones through some lesser sanction is an impossibility, for even assuming there

are non-fraudulent ones (a fact about which the Court has considerable doubt), those aspects

are premised upon and hopelessly bound up with the fraudulent aspects. To allow this action

to proceed would be to condone Plaintiff's behavior. 

Fourth, the forged documents are the foundation of this action. Plaintiff was told to

stop constructing his mobile home because it did not comport with the plans authorized by

Suddarth. Instead of complying, Plaintiff forged documents suggesting that he had in fact

been authorized to construct his mobile home in a different manner from the original plans.

Plaintiff then allowed himself to become embroiled in a bitter dispute with Defendants

premised on the fact that they had given him permission to do something but revoked it and

lied about it. If Plaintiff had not forged the documents, and if he had not relied on those

forged documents, there would be no dispute. See Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1115 (affirming

dismissal where action was premised upon forged purchase agreement).

In light of Plaintiff's behavior, the Court exercises its inherent authority to dismiss this

action. Additionally, it would be unjust for Defendants to have to pay for the cost of

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 13 of 16
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

12Plaintiff has never argued that if it was proven that he had committed perjury and

forgery, dismissal and an awarding of attorneys' fees and costs would be too severe a

sanction.

- 14 -

defending this frivolous action. Plaintiff will be ordered to pay all of Defendants' reasonable

attorneys' fees and costs.12

B. Rule 11

The authority for dismissal and other sanctions also comes from Rule 11, which

provides

Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an

attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney . . ., or, if the party is

not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. . . . 

(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court . . . a

pleading, written motion, or other paper, . . . an unrepresented party is

certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information and

belief, . . . (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such

as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the

cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses and other legal contentions

therein are warranted by existing law . . .; (3) the allegations and other

factual contentions have evidentiary support . . .; and (4) . . . . 

(c) Sanctions. If . . . the court determines that subdivision (b) has been

violated, the court may . . . impose an appropriate sanction upon . . . the

parties that have violated subdivision (b).

Here, Plaintiff has violated Rule 11. He submitted to the Court a Complaint, a First

Amended Complaint, a Second Amended Complaint and a Third Amended Complaint. All

of those documents were signed and verified by Plaintiff himself. All of those documents

were presented for the improper purpose of defrauding the Court and harassing Defendants.

None of the claims are warranted by existing law, and the factual contentions lack

evidentiary support.

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 14 of 16
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

- 15 -

Dismissal and awarding of attorneys fees and costs is an appropriate sanction within

the meaning of Rule 11. See Combs, 927 F.2d 486; Sun World, 144 F.R.D. at 389-90. For

all the reasons discussed above, the Court imposes those sanctions on Plaintiff. Significantly,

he has shown no remorse, and despite the detection of his lies at every turn, Plaintiff has dug

his heels in deeper and pressed on with this litigation, filing a second action, lying at his

deposition, tampering with the Court's file, and even lying to the Court face-to-face. Justice

demands the harsh treatment of such behavior.

IV. OTHER MOTIONS

A. Defendants' Motion to Continue

Defendants' have filed a motion to continue the trial and pre-trial deadlines (Doc.

183). The Court will withhold ruling on that motion at the present time to allow Defendants

to decide whether they would still like to proceed with their counterclaim against Plaintiff

in light of the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss.

B. Defendants' Motion to Consolidate

Defendants have filed a motion to consolidate a different action filed by Plaintiff

currently pending before Judge James Teilborg with the present one. The decision of

whether to consolidate falls within the Court's discretion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), and the

Court declines to exercise that discretion in favor of consolidation. However, the Court will

provide a copy of this Order to Judge Teilborg.

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 140). Plaintiff's

Third Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay all costs and attorneys' fees

incurred by Defendants in defending this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall submit an application for

attorneys' fees and costs within thirty days of this Order.

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 15 of 16
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

- 16 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion to Consolidate with

CV05-2586. (Doc. 149). 

DATED this 16th day of February, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00001-SRB Document 187 Filed 02/21/06 Page 16 of 16