-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 05-4988

MEMORANDUM / ORDER

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell’s Report and

Recommendation (Docket No. 144), in which she recommends that the court grant

defendants’ motions (Docket No.134 & 135) to enforce the court’s prior orders (Docket

Nos. 47 & 103) imposing sanctions on plaintiff for violation Rule 11. She further

recommends that the court deny plaintiff’s motion to stay enforcement of the sanctions

order (Docket No. 137). Plaintiff has filed objections (Docket No. 148) to Judge Angell’s

Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, I will adopt Judge Angell’s

Report and Recommendation and dismiss plaintiff’s objections thereto.

I. Background

Because the parties are intimately familiar with the course of this litigation, I relate

only those facts relevant to today’s decision. Plaintiff Mark Jackson initiated this lawsuit

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 152 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 6
-2-

by filing a complaint against various defendants on September 19, 2005. Defendants

promptly moved that the complaint be dismissed, and that plaintiff be sanctioned for

violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 9, 2006, this court

granted defendants’ motion on the ground that many of plaintiffs’ allegations were

frivolous, particularly in light of the court’s rejection of the very same arguments in

dismissing plaintiff’s previous action, Jackson v. Rohm & Haas Co. (Jackson I), Civ. No.

03-5299, 2005 WL 1592910 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 30, 2005), aff’d No. 06-1540, 2007 WL

579662 (3d Cir. Feb. 26, 2007). Opinion of March 9, 2006, Docket No. 47. This court

ruled that sanctions would be allowed in the amount of 2/3 of defendants’ reasonable

expenses and attorneys’ fees, and the matter was referred to Judge Angell to fix the

amount. On January 19, 2007, Judge Angell awarded sanctions in the aggregate amount

of $81,710.99 ($71,520.61 to go to Harkins Cunningham LLP, and $10,190.38 to go to

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP), and ordered plaintiff to pay the sanctions award within 60

days. Plaintiff did not file any objection to that order. Plaintiff, however, apparently

ignored the order, as he has yet to pay the sanctions. 

On October 9, 2007, defendants filed motions to enforce the sanctions order. Soon

thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to stay enforcement of the order. Judge Angell

considered all of these motions, and, on December 6, 2007, filed a report and 

recommendation that the court grant defendants’ motions to enforce, and deny plaintiff’s

motion to stay enforcement.

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 152 Filed 01/10/08 Page 2 of 6
-3-

II. Judge Angell’s report and recommendation

Plaintiff made three principal arguments to Judge Angell: (1) that the sanctions

order should not be enforced because of its interlocutory nature, (2) that the order was

obtained by improper means, and (3) that plaintiff has come to possess new evidence that

defendants perpetrated a fraud on the court in certain state-court litigation, as well as in

Jackson I. 

As to the first issue, Judge Angell noted that one of the primary purposes of Rule

11 sanctions is deterrence. R&R at 4 (citing DiPaolo v. Moran, 407 F.3d 140, 146 (3d

Cir. 2005)). She concluded that “[a] delay in the execution of the sanctions order will

decrease its deterrence value.” Id.

Both of the other issues center on interview notes in defendant Rohm & Haas

Co.’s possession that plaintiff alleges to be inauthentic. The core of plaintiff’s argument

is that defendants obtained favorable results in Jackson I and a related state-court case by

relying on these inauthentic documents, and that the documents’ lack of authenticity

makes the sanctioned allegations in this case non-frivolous. Judge Angell concluded that

this argument was “cumulative” and “untimely.” Id.

III. Analysis

Plaintiff objects to Judge Angell’s order on the ground that defendants have taken

inconsistent positions with regard to the authenticity of the interview notes. This issue

has been litigated multiple times, yet plaintiff apparently still fails to understand that the

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 152 Filed 01/10/08 Page 3 of 6
 In his objections, plaintiff purports to incorporate by reference all other arguments made 1

before Judge Angell. This is impermissible. Rule 72(b)(2) allows a party to file “specific written

objections to the [magistrate judge’s] proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2). This court is under no obligation to respond to arguments made elsewhere and not

specifically formulated to address the report and recommendation at issue.

Further, this court finds that the report and recommendation in fact dealt appropriately

-4-

authenticity of the notes was irrelevant to the disposition in Jackson I because that case

was dismissed for lack of RICO standing, an issue that has nothing to do with whether the

interview notes were or were not genuine. Therefore, as explained in this court’s

sanctions order, plaintiff’s contention in this case that defendants obtained a favorable

result in Jackson I by relying on those interview notes is frivolous, as the notes had

nothing to do with this court’s Jackson I decision. Opinion of March 9, 2006, Docket No.

47, at 11 (“Never during the litigation of Jackson I did the Rohm & Haas defendants

represent to the court that the document was authentic or ask this court to make any

decision requiring that the authenticity of the disputed document be accepted. The

document was introduced to show it had been considered by the state courts, not to prove

the truth of its contents. The supposed fraud Jackson now alleges thus lacks the most

fundamental elements of fraud: a representation that is false, and on which falsehood the

person or institution to which the representation is made is asked to rely.”). That

defendants now claim that the notes were authentic—in the context of claims that make

the authenticity of the notes relevant—does not constitute any inconsistency on

defendants’ part. Therefore, plaintiff’s objections will be dismissed, and the report and

recommendation adopted. 

1

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 152 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 6
with all other arguments plaintiff made before Judge Angell. As Judge Angell noted, the purpose

of Rule 11 is to deter abusive behavior. If this court were to hold its sanctions order in abeyance

pending the resolution of this litigation, as plaintiff requested, the goal of deterrence would be

frustrated, as plaintiff would not suffer the immediate consequences of filing a largely frivolous

complaint. Therefore, I agree with Judge Angell that the interlocutory nature of the sanctions

order is not a sufficient reason to prevent its immediate enforcement; indeed, the very purpose of

the order is to give plaintiff a potent incentive not to engage in any more abusive behavior. 

Plaintiff’s penchant—as reflected in his filings on this motion—for making the same argument

no matter how often this court rejects it only serves to strengthen the conclusion that an

immediately enforceable sanction is required to deter abusive litigation practices.

The other argument plaintiff made before Judge Angell related to “new evidence” of

defendants’ alleged misconduct. That evidence centers on defendant Rohm and Haas Co.’s

conduct in state-court litigation in producing the interview notes. Again, those notes were not

relevant to the disposition of Jackson I, or to the sanctions order in this case. Therefore,

plaintiff’s “new evidence” has no bearing on whether the sanctions order should be enforced.

-5-

As Judge Angell recommended, plaintiff will be given 30 days from the date of

this order to pay the sanctions order in full. In addition, all activity in this case will be

stayed pending plaintiff’s payment of the sanctions order. During the pendency of the

stay, the parties will engage in no discovery, and no motions practice. Should plaintiff

fail to pay the sanctions order within 30 days, defendants may move for appropriate relief.

* * * * *

AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2008, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell

(Docket No. 144) is ADOPTED, and plaintiff’s objections thereto (Docket

No. 148) are DISMISSED;

2. defendants’ motions to enforce the sanctions order (Docket Nos. 134 &

135) of January 17, 2007, is GRANTED;

3. plaintiff’s motion to stay enforcement of the sanctions order (Docket No.

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 152 Filed 01/10/08 Page 5 of 6
-6-

137) is DENIED;

4. plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the sanctions order in full within 30 days of

this order; and

5. all activity in this case is STAYED for 30 days, pending plaintiff’s payment

of the sanctions order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Louis H. Pollak

__________________

Pollak, J.

Case 2:05-cv-04988-JKG Document 152 Filed 01/10/08 Page 6 of 6