1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC and ) 

and JACK E. ROBINSON, ) 

 ) 

Petitioners, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 1:10-CV-11335-GAO 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

 Petitioners Robinson Committee, LLC and Jack E. Robinson (collectively, 

“Robinson”) hereby oppose the Motion to Dismiss the Petition (“Motion”) filed by 

respondent Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) on the simple ground that the 

FEC’s counsel failed to consult with Robinson’s counsel before filing the Motion 

in clear violation of Local Rule 7.1(A)(2). See Dkt. No. 5 (Motion lacks required 

certification). 

Because the FEC violated an important rule of this court, Robinson 

requests that the court deny the Motion without prejudice and either (1) refer 

this matter to the FEC’s own Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Program 

and stay the case for 180 days to allow the ADR process to occur; or (2) impose 

a monetary sanction against the FEC of $6,400 – which is the amount of the 

fine assessed by the FEC ($6,050) plus the filing fee in this case ($350).1 

 

1

 Robinson reserves the right to oppose the Motion on substantive grounds if the Motion is filed in 

compliance with the Local Rules in the future. 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 6 Filed 10/09/10 Page 1 of 4
2

In further support hereof, Robinson states as follows: 

 1. Robinson was the unsuccessful Republican U.S. Senate candidate 

in the December 2009 Republican primary special election, having lost the 

primary to the eventual general election winner Sen. Scott Brown. 

2. Robinson was assessed a civil money penalty of $6,050 by the FEC 

because, notwithstanding his best efforts, Robinson filed a campaign finance 

report 81 days late that was due after the general election. 

3. On August 9, 2010, after exhausting his administrative remedies 

challenging the fine, Robinson filed this action seeking review of the FEC’s 

decision. 

4. On Friday, October 8, 2010 (the beginning of the Columbus Day 

holiday weekend), and without first conferring with Robinson’s counsel and 

without certifying that it had done so, the FEC filed the Motion. (Dkt. No. 5). 

Even worse, the FEC filed the Motion on the Friday before a holiday weekend in 

an effort to “blind-side” Robinson. The FEC’s actions provide sufficient reason 

for the Court to deny the Motion without prejudice and to sanction the FEC for 

its misconduct. 

5. “The purpose of Rule 7.1 is to conserve judicial resources by 

encouraging parties to narrow the contours of disagreement before bringing 

their dispute to the court. Rule 7.1 does not have a ‘no harm, no foul’ escape 

clause.” Converse, Inc. v. Reebok Int’l Ltd., 328 F. Supp. 2d 166, 170 (D. 

Mass. 2004). 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 6 Filed 10/09/10 Page 2 of 4
3

6. In Converse, the court imposed a $15,000 sanction for a movant’s 

violation of Rule 7.1(A)(2) because the movant, as in this case, ambushed the 

other party with a motion on the Friday of a holiday weekend. “A sanction in 

the amount of $15,000 will send the appropriate message that Rule 7.1 is no 

trifle, and that the court expects compliance with both the letter and spirit of 

its requirements.” Id. at 171. See also Steele v. Turner Broadcasting System, 

Inc., No. 08-11727-NMG, 2010 WL 3810850, *6 (D. Mass. Sep. 27, 2010) 

(“Failure to [comply with the Rule] may result in sanctions.”). 

7. The failure of the FEC’s counsel to confer with Robinson’s counsel 

is particularly egregious in this case because this entire dispute, over a $6,050 

fine, is tailor-made for ADR using the FEC’s own ADR Program. See FEC’s 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (rev. Feb. 2010) (available at 

www.fec.gov/em/adr.shtml) (last visited Oct. 9, 2010). The court should stay 

the case for 180 days to allow the ADR process to occur. 

8. Alternatively, the court should impose a monetary sanction against 

the FEC in the amount of $6,400, consisting of the fine at issue in this case 

($6,050) plus the filing fee incurred by Robinson to commence this action 

($350). Robinson would then immediately pay over to the FEC the $6,050 — 

thereby ending this dispute and resulting in Robinson voluntarily dismissing 

this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).2

 

2

 One of the attorneys appearing for the FEC in this action, Assistant General Counsel Kevin Deeley, is a 

member of the bar of the Commonwealth who presumably is acquainted with this court’s Local Rules and 

their importance. See Dkt. No. 4 at 2 (FEC Notice of Appearance). 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 6 Filed 10/09/10 Page 3 of 4
4

 Respectfully submitted, 

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC and 

JACK E. ROBINSON, 

By their attorney, 

 /s/ Jack E. Robinson 

 Jack E. Robinson (BBO #559683) 

 ROBINSON LAW OFFICES 

 300 First Stamford Place, Suite 201 

 Stamford, CT 06902 

 (203) 425-4500 

 (203) 425-4555 (fax) 

 Robinsonesq@aol.com 

Dated: October 9, 2010 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 The undersigned hereby certifies that this document filed through the 

ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as 

identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent 

to those indicated as non-registered participants on the date hereof. 

 /s/ Jack E. Robinson 

 Jack E. Robinson 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 6 Filed 10/09/10 Page 4 of 4