PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

Dayna J. Christian, OSB #97336

Nicole McMillan, OSB #114573

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, Oregon 97209

Phone: (503) 802-5533

Fax: (503) 802-5351

E-Mail: dayna.christian@immixlaw.com

E-Mail: nicole.mcmillan@immixlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

MORASCH MEATS, INC., an Oregon 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

FREVOL HPP, LLC fka FRESHER 

EVOLUTION HPP, L.L.C., a Michigan 

limited liability company, dba NEXT HPP; 

ALL NATURAL FRESHNESS, INC., a 

Michigan corporation; and GERALD R. 

LUDWICK, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00269-PK

PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Oral Argument Requested

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 40
Page iii– TABLE OF CONTENTS – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE........................................................................................... 1

II. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS.................................................................................................... 2

III. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY ............................................................................................ 3

IV. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 6

A. Defendants’ Counsel created difficulties and interposed inefficiencies 

throughout the discovery and deposition phase of this litigation........................... 6

B. Defendants’ Counsel has filed frivolous and unsupported motions and 

pleadings and pressed unsubstantiated legal positions throughout this 

litigation.................................................................................................................. 8

C. Defendants’ Counsel failed to meaningfully confer regarding important 

issues in Morasch’s own motion filings, again causing Morasch to incur 

needless expenses................................................................................................. 11

D. Defendants’ Counsel failed to submit proper responses to Morasch’s 

Requests for Admissions...................................................................................... 14

E. Defendants’ Counsel improperly accused Morasch’s counsel of illegal 

wiretapping........................................................................................................... 15

F. Defendants’ Counsel failed to meaningfully confer regarding the Parties’ 

pre-trial submissions, again causing Morasch’s counsel to incur 

unnecessary time and fees. ................................................................................... 16

G. Defendants’ Counsel engaged in improper tactics to delay and avoid the 

trial of this matter, again needlessly increasing Morasch’s litigation 

expenses................................................................................................................ 17

V. MEMORANDUM OF LAW ................................................................................................... 22

A. The Applicable Rules........................................................................................... 22

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 .......................................................... 22

2. Local Rule 83-3, Local Rule 83-7, and the Oregon District 

Court’s Statement of Professionalism ...................................................... 24

B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss failed to meet the minimum standards for 

pleadings, and sanctions are warranted. ............................................................... 25

C. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment failed to meet the minimum 

standards for pleadings, and sanctions are warranted. ......................................... 27

D. Defendants’ Counsel has disregarded the Local Rules. ....................................... 29

E. Morasch is entitled to an imposition of sanctions against Defendants’ 

Counsel................................................................................................................. 31

VI. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 34

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 2 of 40
Page iv– TABLE OF CONTENTS – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’n Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 553 (1991) ..................... 23

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991)...................................................................... 22

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)...................................................... 23

Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................. 22

Franklin v. Pinnacle Entm’t, Inc., 289 F.R.D. 278, 286 (E.D. Mo. 2012) ................. 23, 24, 29, 30

Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or. 247, 255–56 (1994) .......................................................................... 26

Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1987)................................... 23

In re Soares, 107 F.3d 969, 975 (1st Cir. 1997) ............................................................................. 4

Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 403 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005),

amended and superseded by 416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005).................................................... 26

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1106–07 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................... 4

Mareno v. Rowe, 910 F.2d 1043, 1047 (2d Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 24

Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1508 (9th Cir. 1987)....................................... 23

See Wolgast v. Richards, No. 05-10278-BC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704, at *6 

(E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012).................................................................................................... 4, 5

St. Amant v. Bernard, 859 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 1988)............................................................. 23

Thompson v. RelationServe Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 628, 665 (11th Cir. 2010) ....................... 23, 24

Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1363–66 (9th Cir. 1990)...................... 24

Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 131–32 (1992)................................................................ 4, 5

Statutes

11 U.S.C. § 362(a) .......................................................................................................................... 4

ORS 12.110................................................................................................................................... 26

Other Authorities

Statement of Professionalism, General Guidelines 1.13............................................................... 25

Rules

FRCP 11................................................................................................................................. passim

FRCP 11 Advisory Committee Notes (1983 Amendment) .......................................................... 22

FRCP 11(b)................................................................................................................................... 23

FRCP 11(b)(1) ........................................................................................................................ 22, 23

FRCP 11(b)(2) .............................................................................................................................. 23

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 3 of 40
Page v– TABLE OF CONTENTS – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S 

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

FRCP 11(b)(3) .............................................................................................................................. 23

FRCP 11(c)(2)............................................................................................................................. 2, 9

FRCP 11(c)(4)............................................................................................................................... 24

Local Rule 7-1................................................................................................................................. 1

Local Rule 83.......................................................................................................................... 30, 31

Local Rule 83-3...................................................................................................................... passim

Local Rule 83-7...................................................................................................................... passim

Oregon District Court’s Statement of Professionalism............................................... 22, 24, 25, 31

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 4 of 40
Page 1 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

I. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, counsel for Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc. (“Morasch” or 

“Plaintiff”) certifies that it conferred in good faith with Michelle E. Vocht (“Ms. Vocht”) and 

Alexander C. Trauman1 (“Mr. Trauman”) (collectively, “Defendants’ Counsel”), counsel for 

Frevol HPP, LLC (“Frevol”), All Natural Freshness, Inc. (“All Natural Freshness”), and Gerald R. 

Ludwick (“Mr. Ludwick”) (collectively “Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”) 

via telephone regarding the matters addressed in this Motion for Sanctions (Plaintiff Morasch 

Meats, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 156) and this supplement thereto are collectively 

referred to herein as the “Motion for Sanctions”). Plaintiff’s counsel sought to confer with 

Defendants’ Counsel regarding the additional content included in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion 

for Sanctions, but Defendants’ Counsel declined to confer. The Parties were unable to resolve 

their differences and the Court’s attention is required.

At oral argument before this Court on January 30, 2018, Plaintiff agreed to set the briefing 

on this Motion for Sanctions to occur after the trial in this case concluded. In late June 2018, the 

litigation against Defendants was stayed after they each filed for bankruptcy in the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan. See Minutes of Proceedings (Docket No. 

253). After confirming that this action was stayed with respect to the Defendants on June 21, 

2018, the Court invited Plaintiff to supplement its Motion for Sanctions (which only addresses 

conduct of Defendants’ Counsel and is collateral to the substantive case against Defendants), set a 

briefing schedule, and scheduled oral argument for August 15, 2018. See id. 

 1 On May 1, 2018, Mr. Trauman filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for Defendants. 

See Motion of Motschenbacher & Blattner LLP to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for 

Defendants (Docket No. 197). On May 4, 2018, the Court held a telephonic hearing in which it 

provisionally granted Mr. Trauman’s motion and admonished Defendants to find new local 

counsel within twenty days. See Minutes of Proceedings (Docket No. 200). Mr. Trauman was 

officially released as counsel of record for Defendants on June 1, 2018, despite Defendants’ 

failure to obtain new local counsel. Order (Docket No. 217). While Mr. Trauman no longer 

represents Defendants, that does not in any way release him from being held accountable for his 

conduct before this Court that is the subject of this Motion for Sanctions. 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 5 of 40
Page 2 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 11(c)(1), Plaintiff certifies that 

Defendants and Defendants’ Counsel received notice of this Motion for Sanctions. Such notice 

was provided in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Amended Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 

12(B)(6) – Statute of Limitations Fraud (Docket No. 142, at Section E) and in Morasch Meats, 

Inc.’s Amended Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment–Counts I and II 

(Docket No. 150, at Section VI). Plaintiff further certifies that its Motion for Sanctions was 

submitted in compliance with the service and filing requirements of FRCP 11(c)(2), and it was 

supplemented upon invitation by the Court and in accordance with its scheduling order.

II. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Having provided notice of its intent to seek sanctions in its responses to both Defendants’ 

Amended Motion Under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(B)(6)–Statute of Limitations Fraud (Docket No. 130) 

(“Motion to Dismiss”) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment–Counts I and II (Docket 

No. 136) (“Motion for Summary Judgment”), and having been invited by this Court to 

supplement its initial request for sanctions, Morasch files this Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 

FRCP 11(c); the United States District Court for the District of Oregon’s (“Oregon District 

Court”) Local Rules 83-3 and 83-7; and the Oregon District Court’s Statement of 

Professionalism. 

Morasch moves this Court for an order of sanctions against Defendants’ Counsel, 

requiring them to pay Morasch’s attorneys’ fees incurred unnecessarily due to Defendants’ 

Counsel’s improper motions, pleadings, and tactics and to ensure the attendance and meaningful 

participation of local counsel at every court appearance moving forward, once the bankruptcy 

stay is lifted. 

In Section V.F. below, Morasch fully details its request for sanctions against Defendants’ 

Counsel in the amount of $512,370.81. If requested by the Court, Morasch will submit for in 

camera review a detailed attorneys’ fee petition identifying the full measure of fees attributed to 

its pursuit of each of the above-listed items for which sanctions are requested. 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 6 of 40
Page 3 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

III. STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY

As a threshold matter, this Court has authority to decide Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

while the litigation against Defendants is stayed by their bankruptcy proceedings in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions 

is not subject to the automatic stay imposed upon the litigation against Defendants by their 

bankruptcy filings because it only addresses the conduct of Defendants’ Counsel. As such, it is 

collateral to the litigation against Defendants and may be heard and decided by this Court during 

the pendency of Defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the Western District of Michigan. 

The filing of a bankruptcy petition imposes an automatic stay only as to the following 

actions related to the property of the debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate:

(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of 

process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the 

debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the 

case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the 

commencement of the case under this title;

(2) the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a 

judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;

(3) any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the 

estate or to exercise control over property of the estate;

(4) any act to create, perfect, or enforce any lien against property of the estate;

(5) any act to create, perfect, or enforce against property of the debtor any lien to 

the extent that such lien secures a claim that arose before the commencement of the 

case under this title;

(6) any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before 

the commencement of the case under this title;

(7) the setoff of any debt owing to the debtor that arose before the commencement 

of the case under this title against any claim against the debtor; and

(8) the commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United States 

Tax Court concerning a tax liability of a debtor that is a corporation for a taxable 

period the bankruptcy court may determine or concerning the tax liability of a 

debtor who is an individual for a taxable period ending before the date of the order 

for relief under this title.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 7 of 40
Page 4 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

11 U.S.C. § 362(a) (emphasis added). Importantly—and as emphasized above—the automatic 

stay only applies to actions concerning properties, claims, judgments, assets, and/or liabilities of 

the bankruptcy debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate and does not apply to properties, claims, 

judgments, assets, and/or liabilities of third parties. See id. The automatic stay is intended to 

provide breathing room to a debtor by temporarily ceasing all collections efforts, harassment, 

and foreclosures against him. In re Soares, 107 F.3d 969, 975 (1st Cir. 1997).

Federal district courts have the power to decide whether particular matters before them 

fall within the scope of an automatic stay. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1106–07 

(9th Cir. 2005) (“[A] district court has jurisdiction to decide whether the automatic stay applies 

to a proceeding pending before it, over which it would otherwise have jurisdiction.”). This 

authority includes the power to decide whether a pending FRCP 11 sanctions motion is subject to 

an automatic stay imposed by the Michigan bankruptcy courts. See Wolgast v. Richards, No. 05-

10278-BC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012).

As relevant to the matter at hand, a district court may impose FRCP 11 sanctions against 

counsel despite the imposition of an automatic stay on an underlying action against a bankruptcy 

debtor. FRCP 11 sanctions are “collateral to the merits of the case” and only address “the issue 

[of] whether the court’s rules were violated” by counsel; thus, a district court’s “interest in 

having rules of procedure obeyed [does] not disappear with the subsequent determination that it 

lack[s] subject-matter jurisdiction.” Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 131–32 (1992) (court 

syllabus). As stated by the United States Supreme Court: 

“[It] is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues after an 

action is no longer pending. . . . [An] imposition of a Rule 11 sanction is not a 

judgment on the merits of an action. Rather, it requires the determination of a 

collateral issue: whether the attorney has abused the judicial process, and, if so, 

what sanction would be appropriate.” . . . Such an order implicates no 

constitutional concern because it “does not signify a district court’s assessment of 

the legal merits of the complaint.” . . . It therefore does not raise the issue of a 

district court adjudicating the merits of a “case or controversy” over which it lacks 

jurisdiction.

Id. at 138 (internal citations omitted); see also Wolgast, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704, at *11

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 8 of 40
Page 5 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

(United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan stating that a “bankruptcy filing 

does not automatically stay [a] Plaintiff’s motion” for Rule 11 sanctions even when the 

underlying case is stayed). With that said, an FRCP 11 sanctions motion may not be heard over 

an automatic stay when the issues raised therein would require the court to decide the merits of a 

substantive motion impacting the bankruptcy debtor’s position in the underlying stayed 

litigation. Wolgast, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704, at *16–17. 

Under the principle that sanctions issues are collateral to an underlying substantive case, 

the United States Supreme Court has upheld the imposition of sanctions upon counsel who filed 

voluminous, unindexed, unnumbered, and otherwise confusing and careless pleadings that were 

an “‘affront to the judicial process, [the] Court, and opposing counsel’” and that were 

“‘irresponsible at a minimum and at worst intentionally harassing’”; these sanctions were upheld 

despite the fact that the district court was later determined to lack subject matter jurisdiction over 

the case. See Willy, 503 U.S. at 133, 139 (internal citations omitted). 

In the present case, it is clear that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is not subject to the 

automatic stay. First, this Motion for Sanctions does not fall within the scope of the automatic 

stay because (as fully detailed below) it does not apply to or in any way impact properties, 

claims, judgments, assets, and/or liabilities of Mr. Ludwick, Frevol, or All Natural Freshness 

and/or their bankruptcy estates. Instead, it only addresses the conduct of Defendants’ Counsel 

before this Court and does not request that this Court make any new determinations regarding 

substantive matters that would affect Defendants’ position in the underlying litigation. To the 

extent that motions and/or legal issues in the underlying litigation are discussed in the Motion for 

Sanctions, they have either already been ruled upon by this Court or are only discussed for the 

purpose of detailing Defendants’ Counsel’s conduct in relation thereto. Thus, the issues raised in 

this Motion for Sanctions are entirely collateral to the underlying case against Defendants, and 

this Court has clear authority to decide this Motion for Sanctions at the present time. 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 9 of 40
Page 6 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

IV. BACKGROUND

Throughout this litigation, Defendants’ Counsel has engaged in a consistent pattern of 

failure to abide by FRCP 11, the Oregon District Court’s Local Rules 83-3 and 83-7, and the 

Oregon District Court’s Statement of Professionalism. As fully detailed below, Defendants’ 

Counsel’s motions, pleadings, and tactics throughout this litigation have been replete with factual 

inaccuracies, incorrect assertions of law, baseless legal arguments, and typographical errors. 

These filings have forced Morasch’s counsel to spend significant time and effort responding to 

and correcting the inaccurate picture that they have repeatedly painted for this Court. The Court 

must act now to correct and deter Defendants’ Counsel’s pattern of practice and encourage a 

more efficient, cost-effective, and professional litigation process. Only by imposing sanctions 

will Defendants’ Counsel be deterred from further misconduct, dissuaded from draining 

additional court resources, and discouraged from practicing in a manner that substantially and 

unnecessarily increases parties’ litigation expenses. 

A. Defendants’ Counsel created difficulties and interposed inefficiencies throughout 

the discovery and deposition phase of this litigation.

Defendants’ Counsel made errors and caused inefficiencies throughout the discovery 

phase of this case. For example, Defendants’ Counsel repeatedly made errors in their production 

of documents to Morasch. Declaration of Dayna J. Christian in Support of Plaintiff Morasch 

Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Motion for Sanctions (“Christian Decl.”), ¶ 3; see, e.g., id. ¶ 36, Ex. 

8. On multiple occasions, Defendants’ Counsel relied upon Morasch’s counsel to track and 

monitor their use of Bates Numbers in their document production set. Id. ¶ 3. Each time, 

Morasch’s counsel was required to research Defendants’ Counsel’s document production history, 

confirm their Bates Number usage, and provide the information needed to prepare Defendants’

Counsel’s next document production set. Id. Even when Morasch’s counsel provided 

Defendants’ Counsel with the correct Bates Number sequence, they still made errors and often 

submitted documents under duplicative Bates Numbers. Id. In some cases, Morasch’s counsel 

informed Defendants’ Counsel that their Bates Number sequence was off and they re-produced 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 10 of 40
Page 7 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

corrected documents, thereby forcing Morasch’s counsel to review the document set twice and 

pay its third-party discovery vendor for associated follow up work. Id. In other cases, 

Defendants’ Counsel declined to correct duplicative Bates Numbers that were brought to their

attention by Morasch’s counsel. Id. 

To date, Defendants’ Counsel has duplicated forty-eight uncorrected Bates Numbers, 

requiring Morasch’s counsel to add the letter “A” to the end of their erroneous Bates Numbers to 

identify them as duplicative. Id. These discovery errors resulted in inefficiencies, generated 

unnecessary legal fees for Morasch, and disrupted Morasch’s counsel’s own workflow. Id. 

Despite these repeated difficulties, Morasch’s counsel consistently sought to be helpful to 

Defendants’ Counsel and avoided bringing these issues before this Court. Id. This conduct has 

caused Morasch to incur fees in the amount of $2,655.00, for which Defendants’ Counsel should 

be sanctioned. 

As an additional example of Defendants’ Counsel’s unprofessionalism during the 

discovery process, Ms. Vocht’s conduct during the depositions in this case was improper and at 

times violated the rules governing deposition conduct. For example, Ms. Vocht mishandled an 

exhibit during Morasch’s deposition of Mr. Ludwick on behalf of Frevol by removing the exhibit 

in question from the deposition room to prepare him for her re-direct examination. Id. ¶ 5. 

Following this incident, Ms. Vocht led Mr. Ludwick in her re-direct to contradict his prior 

testimony and take an entirely unsupported position, strongly suggesting that she coached him to 

change his testimony. Id. ¶ 37, Ex. 9 at 4–12 (46:13–47:1, 181:19–186:4).

Similarly, during each of the depositions taken by Morasch’s counsel in this litigation, 

Ms. Vocht was disruptive, improperly objected to deposition questions, corrected answers and 

caused deponents to change testimony, and repeatedly refused to lodge objections that complied 

with deposition rules. See, e.g., id. ¶ 38, Ex. 10 at 2–4 (187:11–189:7) (improper objection); id.

at 5–6 (217:6–218:1) (improperly corrected witness answer); id. ¶ 37, Ex. 9 at 2–3 (20:25–21:21) 

(improper objection); id. at 6 (123:8–24) (improper objection). Mr. Trauman did not participate 

in the depositions taken in this case in any way, despite the fact that as local counsel it was his 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 11 of 40
Page 8 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

responsibility to meaningfully participate in all phases of the case (including assisting Ms. Vocht 

during depositions). Id. ¶ 6. Despite Defendants’ Counsel’s unprofessional and improper 

conduct during discovery and depositions, Morasch’s counsel did not complain to the Court, 

instead pressing forward to avoid further distraction and prevent the cost that discovery violation 

motion practice would have imposed upon the case. Id. Although Morasch is entitled to seek 

sanctions for this conduct, no monetary sanctions are requested. Instead, Morasch asks that the 

Court admonish Defendants’ Counsel for failing to involve local counsel and require that local 

counsel meaningfully participate in all proceedings once the bankruptcy stay is lifted. 

B. Defendants’ Counsel has filed frivolous and unsupported motions and pleadings and 

pressed unsubstantiated legal positions throughout this litigation. 

Throughout this litigation, Defendants’ Counsel has filed frivolous motions and pleadings 

and improperly pressed legal issues on which their positions were entirely unsupported by 

Oregon law. In many cases, Defendants’ Counsel ultimately conceded defeat after Morasch’s 

counsel was forced to incur many hours of work to correct their unsupported positions. In other 

cases, Morasch’s counsel was forced to bring these matters before the Court, which ultimately 

agreed with Morasch and ruled that Defendants’ Counsel’s positions and pleadings were 

improper under Oregon law and/or the applicable rules.

First, in August 2017 Defendants’ Counsel filed the Motion for Leave to Amend 

Counterclaim despite the fact that Defendants had no counterclaim on file that could have been 

the subject of a motion to amend. See Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaim (Docket No. 

100). Morasch’s counsel was required to fully brief this issue for the Court and participate in 

oral argument on this matter, incurring legal fees in the amount of $13,785.00. See Plaintiff’s 

Response to Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaim (Docket No. 103); Christian 

Decl., ¶ 12. Following oral argument, the Court provided Defendants’ Counsel with extra days 

in which to bring forth legal support for their tenuous position. See Minutes of Proceedings 

(Docket No. 115). Despite the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing in support of their 

position, Defendants’ Counsel not only failed to come forward with any additional support but 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 12 of 40
Page 9 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

withdrew their motion entirely. See Order (Docket No. 118). Thus, although Morasch had 

intended to move for FRCP 11 sanctions on this issue, it did not file such a motion because the 

pleading to be challenged was withdrawn. See FRCP 11(c)(2) (providing that sanctions must not 

be sought if the challenged paper is withdrawn). Morasch does not seek the imposition of 

monetary sanctions for the fees it incurred to respond to this motion but asks the Court to 

reprimand Defendants’ Counsel for their irresponsible motion practice.

Second, in September 2017 Defendants’ Counsel insisted that Mr. Ludwick was not 

required to participate in the depositions of Frevol or All Natural Freshness under the “apex 

witness doctrine” and filed with this Court a Motion for Protective Order. See Defendants’ 

Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 104). Defendants’ Counsel did so despite Morasch’s 

counsel’s objections and clear explanation of the applicable laws. See Christian Decl., ¶ 7; id. ¶ 

29, Ex. 1; id. ¶ 30, Ex. 2. As a result of Defendants’ Counsel’s filing, Morasch’s counsel was 

required to fully brief this issue for the Court. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion 

for Protective Order (Docket No. 105); Declaration of Dayna J. Christian in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 106); see also 

Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Docket No. 107). 

Defendants’ Counsel’s legal theory was not supported by Oregon law or the facts of this case,

and the Court issued an order denying the motion. Order (Docket No. 108). Despite the 

unsubstantiated nature of Defendants’ Counsel’s arguments on this issue, Morasch was required 

to incur legal fees in the amount of $5,962.50 to respond to them, as fully detailed in Section 

V.F. below. Christian Decl., ¶ 7. Further, Morasch’s counsel was forced to take time away from 

other meaningful discovery and trial preparation. Id.

Third, despite Morasch’s counsel’s advice regarding Oregon law on this issue, in 

December 2017 Defendants’ Counsel insisted upon pressing the position that they were entitled 

to take post-discovery depositions, which Ms. Vocht referred to as “de bene esse depositions.” 

Id. ¶ 31, Ex. 3 at 2. Ms. Vocht first mentioned this form of depositions in an email to the Court 

dated October 24, 2017, while the Parties were discussing potential trial dates and the number of 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 13 of 40
Page 10 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

anticipated trial days. See id. Morasch’s counsel researched this Latin phrase and found that de 

bene esse depositions are used in Ms. Vocht’s home jurisdiction of Michigan. Id. ¶ 4. On 

December 21, 2017—months after the close of discovery—Ms. Vocht sent Morasch’s counsel an 

email demanding to take de bene esse depositions in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 32, 

Ex. 4 at 2. Morasch’s counsel was once again required to research Ms. Vocht’s demand, 

evaluate her ability to take depositions after the close of discovery, and provide findings to Ms. 

Vocht to dissuade her from pursuing these late depositions. Id. at 1. Morasch’s counsel 

encouraged Ms. Vocht to “either familiarize yourself with the Local Rules or confer more 

closely with your local counsel, [Mr. Trauman], who is responsible for your pro hac vice status.” 

Id. Morasch’s counsel further issued the following warning to Ms. Vocht: “[Morasch] has now 

incurred fees as a result of my team’s work to call this Local Rule to your attention. This will be 

included in any subsequent Motion for Sanctions that we may file against all counsel and their 

law firms.” Id. Ms. Vocht acquiesced and acknowledged her error, and Morasch’s counsel did 

not seek sanctions. Id. ¶ 4. While Defendants’ Counsel ultimately conceded this issue, 

Morasch’s counsel was still required to incur fees in the amount of $1,365.00, as fully detailed in 

Section V.F. below. Id. 

Fourth—and at the very core of this Motion for Sanctions—in December 2017, 

Defendants’ Counsel filed the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Summary Judgment, both 

of which required incredibly significant responses from Morasch’s counsel. Both motions were 

complex and unsupported by Oregon law, contained a plethora of legal and factual inaccuracies, 

and were ultimately denied by this Court. See Opinion and Order (Docket No. 188). The 

unsupported legal contentions, factual inaccuracies, and other errors in Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment—as well as Morasch’s counsel’s efforts in 

responding to correct them—are fully detailed in Sections V.B. and V.C. below and need not be 

repeated here. To overcome these frivolous motions, Morasch’s counsel was forced to incur 

$32,818.00 in fees to conduct legal research, prepare responsive briefings, and participate in oral 

argument on the Motion to Dismiss and seeks $200,000.00 in sanctions for the efforts made in 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 14 of 40
Page 11 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

relation to the parties’ motions for summary judgment, as fully detailed in Section V.B. and V.C.

below. Christian Decl., ¶¶ 11, 16.

Fifth and finally, on April 4, 2018, Defendants’ Counsel filed Defendants’ Answer, 

which erroneously included a new counterclaim and several affirmative defenses that were 

improperly expanded at a very late date in the litigation. See Answer. Morasch’s counsel 

explained to Defendants’ Counsel that these newly added items were improper and would need 

to be removed, but Defendants’ Counsel refused to amend the Answer to delete them. Christian 

Decl., ¶ 13. As such, Morasch’s counsel was forced to prepare and file Plaintiff Morasch Meats, 

Inc.’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 195) (“Motion to Strike”), as well as 

Plaintiff’s Reply in support thereof (Docket No. 204). Further, in their Response, Defendants’ 

Counsel included an improperly pled request for leave to amend to add a counterclaim, which 

did not comply with this Court’s Local Rules. See Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and 

Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Amend to File Counterclaim

(Docket No. 202), 8. Again, Morasch’s counsel was forced to brief an issue and incur legal fees 

due to Defendants’ Counsel’s disregard for Oregon law and the rules that apply to proceedings 

held before this Court. See Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 204), 5–6. Ultimately, the Court agreed 

with Morasch and ordered Defendants’ Counsel to correct and amend the Answer. Order

(Docket No. 205). Due to Defendants’ Counsel’s erroneous filing, Morasch’s counsel was 

forced to incur legal fees in the amount of $33,908.00, as fully detailed in Section V. below. 

Christian Decl., ¶ 13.

C. Defendants’ Counsel failed to meaningfully confer regarding important issues in 

Morasch’s own motion filings, again causing Morasch to incur needless expenses. 

Defendants’ Counsel also failed to meaningfully confer with Morasch’s counsel 

regarding critical issues in Morasch’s motion filings, again causing Morasch to incur 

unnecessary legal fees. Defendants’ Counsel repeatedly represented during meet-and-confer 

sessions regarding motions to be filed by Morasch that a mutual agreement was impossible, only 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 15 of 40
Page 12 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

to concede and suggest a stipulated agreement after Morasch’s counsel had completed extensive 

legal research, fully briefed the issue, and filed a motion seeking this Court’s assistance. This 

forced Morasch’s counsel to exert significant effort and Morasch to incur substantial legal fees 

that could have been avoided if Defendants’ Counsel had meaningfully conferred on these issues. 

Defendants’ Counsel failed to meaningfully confer with Morasch’s counsel regarding two 

crucial issues that Morasch intended to raise in its summary judgment motion. Prior to preparing 

Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 137) 

(“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment”), Morasch’s counsel conferred with Defendants’ 

Counsel several times by telephone regarding Morasch’s intent to seek summary judgment with 

respect to (1) Defendants’ statute of frauds affirmative defense and (2) the fact that the 

unmodified October 15, 2014 contract was the final contract between Morasch and Frevol. 

Christian Decl., ¶¶ 14, 15. During each conversation, Defendants’ Counsel informed Morasch’s 

counsel that they intended to stand behind their statute of frauds affirmative defense and would 

not agree that the unmodified October 15, 2014 contract represented the final contract between 

Morasch and Frevol. Id. Accordingly, Morasch’s counsel incurred substantial time to conduct 

legal research, compile documentary support, prepare declarations and exhibits, and write the 

associated sections of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. 

Mere days before the summary judgment deadline—well after the Parties had conferred 

and after Morasch’s counsel had completed the bulk of the work required to move against 

Defendants’ statute of frauds affirmative defense—Defendants’ Counsel informed Morasch’s 

counsel that they had decided to withdraw their statute of frauds affirmative defense after 

researching the issue under Oregon law. Id. ¶ 12, Ex. 40; ¶16, Ex. 44. This entire section of 

Morasch’s summary judgment brief was removed, and Morasch’s counsel could have avoided 

incurring all fees associated with its preparation if Defendants’ Counsel had researched their own 

affirmative defense prior to pleading it and/or been well-prepared for the Parties’ conversations. 

Id. ¶¶ 14, 15.

Further, after all of the summary judgment briefings had been completed, Defendants’ 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 16 of 40
Page 13 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

Counsel informed Morasch’s counsel that they would concede that the unmodified October 15, 

2014 contract represented the final contract between Morasch and Frevol and further concede 

that the contract terms identified by Morasch were included therein and represented the relevant

terms for purposes of this litigation. Id. ¶ 45, Ex. 17; see also Opinion and Order (Docket No. 

188), 2–3. Again, these entire sections of Morasch’s summary judgment briefing were rendered 

unnecessary, and Morasch’s counsel could have avoided incurring the fees associated with 

preparing them if Defendants’ Counsel had been diligent in their own research and prepared for

the Parties’ pre-filing conferences. Christian Decl., ¶¶ 14, 15. To address these summary 

judgment matters on which Defendants’ Counsel ultimately conceded, Morasch’s counsel 

incurred $279,370.00 in legal fees. To account for the partial value of the summary judgment 

motions, Morasch seeks only $200,000.00 in sanctions as stated in Section V.F. below. Id. ¶ 16. 

A similar situation occurred later in the litigation when Morasch’s counsel conferred with 

Defendants’ Counsel regarding Morasch’s intent to seek provisional process protection with 

regard to Mr. Ludwick’s assets pending the outcome of this litigation. Again, prior to preparing 

a motion, Morasch’s counsel conferred with Defendants’ Counsel. Id. ¶ 17. Defendants’ 

Counsel represented that they would not agree to any of the provisional process relief requested 

by Morasch. Id. As such, Morasch’s counsel incurred substantial time to conduct legal research, 

prepare declarations and exhibits, and write Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Motion for Issuance 

of Provisional Process (Docket No. 190). Id.; see also Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Motion 

for Issuance of Provisional Process (Docket No. 190); Declaration of Michael Morasch in 

Support of Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Motion for Issuance of Provisional Process (Docket 

No. 191); Declaration of Dayna J. Christian in Support of Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s 

Motion for Issuance of Provisional Process (Docket No. 192, with exhibits at Docket Nos. 192-1 

through 192-5). Shortly after the motion was filed, Defendants’ Counsel called Morasch’s 

counsel and agreed to stipulate to the requested preliminary injunction. Christian Decl., ¶ 17. 

Again, despite Defendants’ Counsel’s ultimate concession on this issue, Morasch’s counsel 

incurred $31,743.75 in legal fees to prepare its motion, as fully detailed in Section V.F. below; 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 17 of 40
Page 14 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

again, these fees could have been entirely avoided if Defendants’ Counsel had conferred in good 

faith, as required by this Court’s Local Rules. Id. 

D. Defendants’ Counsel failed to submit proper responses to Morasch’s Requests for 

Admissions.

As an additional example of their improper conduct and unprofessionalism, Defendants’ 

Counsel submitted sworn responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions that failed to 

meaningfully address the requests and rendered this valuable evidentiary tool useless to 

Morasch. Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. For example, prior to the Parties’ summary judgment stipulations, a 

central issue in this case was whether Eric Lockovitch (“Mr. Lockovitch”), an independent 

contractor who worked with Defendants, had authority to negotiate, edit, and finalize the various 

versions of the Parties’ contract on behalf of All Natural Freshness and Frevol. Id. ¶ 9; see also 

Opinion and Order (Docket No. 188), 2–3. This issue was relevant to both Defendants’ and 

Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. To resolve this critical issue and avoid the need for 

fact finder deliberations, Morasch submitted Requests for Admissions to Mr. Ludwick and 

Frevol. Christian Decl., ¶¶ 9, 10. However, in avoidance of their responsibility to provide clear, 

concise, and truthful responses, Defendants’ Counsel submitted the following retort on behalf of 

Mr. Ludwick:

REQUEST 3: Admit that from 2013 to the present, you alone controlled the 

operations of Frevol.

RESPONSE 3: Denied for the reason that Samantha Zwang [sic] was in 

charge of finding leads and performed important administrative functions for 

Frevol in China, including serving as translator. Adrian Staruszkiewicz, a 

professional engineer, performed mechanical engineering and technical inspection 

functions. He also found machinists and recommended vendors to perform 

operational functions. There were independent contractors whose operations were 

controlled by them and they were to perform in their individual professional areas 

of expertise, i.e., welding, electrical, tooling, CAD, in accord with those operations 

and the standards of operation in their particular areas. Eric Lockovitch held the 

title of Vice President Business Development, and in that position operated in 

flagging and rejecting new businesses which seemed interested [sic] the use or 

purchase of HPP. As such, Mr. Lockovitch served as a go-between businesses and 

the CEO, [Mr. Ludwick], on whether sales or service [sic] were a potentiality. To 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 18 of 40
Page 15 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

provide analogy, by qualification, Eric Lockovitch was the pirate who started 

but was not authorized to finish the parlay. Only the higher officers, such as a 

person like Michael Morasch, the President of [Morasch], and the General Manager 

of Frevol, [Mr. Ludwick] were officially authorized to enter into and execute vital 

agreements.

Id. ¶ 32, Ex. 5 at 2–3 (emphasis added). It was unprofessional for Defendants’ Counsel to 

choose to answer this Request for Admission by referring to a key witness in the case as “the 

pirate who started but was not authorized to finish the parlay.”2

Further, this response was unclear as to whether the request was denied or subject to a 

qualified admission, and it contained voluminous non-responsive content that was irrelevant to 

Morasch’s specific and direct request. See id. ¶ 10. Such irreverent responses were persistent 

throughout each document submitted by Defendants’ Counsel in response to Plaintiff’s Requests 

for Admissions. Id. To remedy these largely valueless responses, Morasch’s counsel handwrote 

edits to each set of responses, calling out every error and unclear response, as well as all

improper and non-responsive content, in hopes of inspiring Defendants’ Counsel to amend their 

responses. Id. ¶ 35, Ex. 7 at 2–41. Morasch’s counsel incurred legal fees in the amount of 

$9,083.00 to prepare these Requests for Admissions, call attention to Defendants’ Counsel’s 

errors, and attempt to convince Defendants’ Counsel to submit amended responses, as fully 

detailed in Section V.F. below. Id. ¶ 9. Despite these efforts, at least thirty percent of Morasch’s 

carefully written Requests for Admissions were rendered virtually worthless by the conduct of 

Defendants’ Counsel, and Morasch seeks $2,724.90 in sanctions to reflect that loss. Id.

E. Defendants’ Counsel improperly accused Morasch’s counsel of illegal wiretapping.

As another example of the inefficiencies caused by Defendants’ Counsel, Ms. Vocht 

caused unnecessary distraction and cost in November 2017 when she accused Morasch’s counsel 

of illegally tape recording her during a telephone call. Id. ¶ 39, Ex. 11. Following a deposition 

 2 Mr. Ludwick repeated the same phrase—that Mr. Lockovitch “was the pirate who started but 

was not authorized to finish the parlay”—in his responses to Request for Admission Nos. 3, 6, 

and 8. Christian Decl., ¶ 33, Ex. 5 at 2–6. In its own responses, Frevol used the same “pirate” 

phrase in response to Request for Admission No. 2. Id. ¶ 34, Ex. 6 at 2–3.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 19 of 40
Page 16 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

in this case, Morasch’s counsel confronted Ms. Vocht with an email that she had previously sent 

regarding the scope of Mr. Lockovitch’s authority, which was inconsistent with the position she 

was taking at that time. Id. ¶ 8. Ms. Vocht could not recall the content of her own email and 

mistakenly assumed that Morasch’s counsel was reading from an illegal tape recording of a prior 

telephone call among counsel. Id. To defend themselves, Morasch’s counsel had to stop 

working on motion practice, review their files, and address Ms. Vocht’s very serious criminal 

allegation. Id. After several email exchanges, Ms. Vocht recalled that Morasch’s counsel had in 

fact simply read her own email back to her and was not reading from an illegal wiretap 

transcript. Id. Again, Ms. Vocht distracted and diverted Morasch’s counsel, and Morasch 

incurred unnecessary fees in the amount of $90.00 as more fully described in Section V.F. below

because of her error. This amount reflects only the amount of fees charged to Morasch for the 

legal research required to respond to the baseless claim. The actual time and effort spent 

researching and conferring on this criminal allegation was not charged to Morasch. Morasch 

seeks sanctions in at least the amount of $90.00 but also asks the Court to consider an increased 

sanctions amount that more adequately addresses the seriousness of this irresponsible tactic and 

more adequately deters future similar conduct.

F. Defendants’ Counsel failed to meaningfully confer regarding the Parties’ pre-trial 

submissions, again causing Morasch’s counsel to incur unnecessary time and fees. 

Defendants’ Counsel also caused Morasch’s counsel to incur needless fees by refusing to 

meaningfully confer regarding the Parties’ pre-trial submissions. In preparation for the trial of 

this matter, the Court entered a Jury Trial Management Order directing the Parties to jointly 

submit one set of jury instructions for the Court’s consideration. See Jury Trial Management 

Order (Docket No. 121). Defendants’ Counsel refused to meaningfully participate in the 

drafting of the Court-ordered joint jury instructions and instead left Morasch’s counsel to draft 

the entire submission. Christian Decl., ¶ 18. Just days before the due date, Defendants’ Counsel 

insisted upon adding jury instructions derived from outside jurisdictions, which were not 

formatted according to the Court’s Jury Trial Management Order; further, these late-added 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 20 of 40
Page 17 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

instructions contained typographical errors and unidentifiable characters, and they were not 

edited in any way to fit the needs of this case. Id. In an effort to salvage the joint submission, 

Morasch’s counsel spent hours editing and formatting Defendants’ Counsel’s last-minute 

additions. Id. Mr. Trauman made no effort to participate in this process. Id. 

When the trial was reset to July 10, 2018—as fully detailed below—the Court issued an 

updated Jury Trial Management Order and assigned a new due date to the joint jury instruction 

submission. See Jury Trial Management Order (Docket No. 186). Again, without the assistance 

or cooperation of Defendants’ Counsel, Morasch’s counsel alone reviewed, edited, and 

supplemented the jury instruction submission. Christian Decl., ¶ 18. The lack of effort and 

participation by Defendants’ Counsel placed the burden of submitting the jury instructions 

pleading entirely on Morasch’s counsel and required Morasch to shoulder the burden alone. Id. 

Consistent with the lack of cooperation from Defendants’ Counsel on the jury instruction

submission, Defendants’ Counsel also refused to meaningfully participate in resolving objections 

to Defendants’ trial exhibits. Id. ¶ 19. Defendants’ trial exhibits were riddled with errors and 

omitted materials that required Morasch’s counsel to incur many hours to evaluate and state

objections to all but thirteen of the 125 trial exhibits submitted by Defendants’ Counsel for use at 

trial. Id. Morasch’s counsel painstakingly detailed the categories of objections for Defendants’ 

Counsel to aid in resolving this matter. Id. ¶ 43, Ex. 15. Rather than meaningfully conferring, 

Defendants’ Counsel did nothing to address their trial exhibits. Id. ¶ 19. 

Morasch incurred $21,518.00 in fees to prepare and edit the jury instructions that should 

have been prepared jointly and to address Defendants’ objectionable trial exhibit submission. 

Morasch seeks half of that amount, $10,759.00 as an appropriate measure of sanctions as more 

fully detailed in Section V.F. below. Id. ¶¶ 18–20. 

G. Defendants’ Counsel engaged in improper tactics to delay and avoid the trial of this 

matter, again needlessly increasing Morasch’s litigation expenses. 

Finally, Defendants’ Counsel engaged in improper tactics to delay and avoid the trial of 

this matter. In doing so, Defendants’ Counsel forced Morasch’s counsel to exert substantial 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 21 of 40
Page 18 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

efforts and incur significant legal fees that would never have been necessary if Defendants’ 

Counsel had not employed inappropriate and unprofessional tactics to prevent Morasch from 

having its case heard and decided by a jury before this Court. 

First, Defendants’ Counsel delayed and avoided the trial of this matter using Mr. 

Trauman’s asserted plan to take paternity leave. On October 25, 2017, this Court set the twoweek trial of this matter to begin on March 27, 2018, with the pre-trial conference occurring on 

March 19, 2018. Order (Docket No. 120). These dates were discussed among and agreed to by 

all counsel. Christian Decl., ¶ 21. In mid-February 2018—four months later, and on the eve of 

the long-planned trial dates—Mr. Trauman for the first time informed Morasch’s counsel and the 

Court that he was expecting a baby during the long-established trial dates and requested a set 

over. Id. Mr. Trauman represented to the Court that a lengthy delay was necessary because he 

planned to take full parental leave and played such a critical role in the defense’s case that no 

other attorney at his firm (or elsewhere) could replace him. Id. On March 1, 2018—over 

Morasch’s strong objections—the Court postponed the trial of this matter for over three months

to accommodate Mr. Trauman’s schedule, setting it to begin on July 10, 2018. See Minutes of 

Proceedings (Docket No. 185). 

At that time, Morasch’s counsel had already completed and filed two rounds of pre-trial 

submissions3 pursuant to the Court’s Jury Trial Management Order (Docket No. 121), as well as 

engaged in other work to prepare for the imminent trial of this matter. Christian Decl., ¶ 22. As 

 3 Before the set over, Morasch’s counsel had prepared and filed: (1) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, 

Inc.’s Deposition Designations (Docket No. 162); (2) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Exhibit 

List (Docket No. 163) and trial exhibits; (3) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Witness Statements 

(Docket No. 164); (4) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Itemized List of Special Damages (Docket 

No. 165); (5) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Trial Memorandum (Docket No. 166); (6) the 

Proposed Joint Jury Instructions (Docket No. 171); (7) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Proposed 

Verdict Form (Docket No. 172); (8) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Proposed Voir Dire 

Questions (Docket No. 173); (9) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Objections to Defendants’ Trial 

Exhibits (Docket No. 174); (10) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Objections to Defendants’ 

Witness Statements (Docket No. 175); (11) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Objections to 

Defendants’ Deposition Designations (Docket Nos. 176, 177, and 177-1 through 177-4); and 

(12) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Motions in Limine (Docket Nos. 178, 179, and 179-1 

through 179-3). 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 22 of 40
Page 19 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

a direct result of the set over sought by Mr. Trauman, Morasch’s counsel incurred $81,945.38 in 

legal fees to complete work that would now need to be revisited and supplemented at a later date, 

causing additional fees to accrue. Id. Of that total, Morasch seeks only twenty-percent in 

sanctions, totaling $16,389.08; Morasch estimates that this was the percentage of lost value in 

the work resulting from the delay. Morasch’s counsel subsequently learned that Mr. Trauman 

had misrepresented his paternity leave plans to the Court and in fact returned to work after only a 

brief time off following the birth of his child. Id. 

On May 1, 2018—after the trial had been set over to accommodate his schedule—Mr. 

Trauman again sought to avoid the long-pending trial of this matter by filing a motion to 

withdraw himself and his law firm as counsel of record for Defendants. See Motion of 

Motschenbacher & Blattner LLP to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Defendants (Docket No. 

197). In that motion, Mr. Trauman claimed that Defendants had consented to his withdrawal and 

used the set over that he had previously secured to argue that the newly delayed trial date “[left] 

ample time for Defendants to secure substitute counsel.” Id. at 2. He further stated—in direct 

contrast to his prior representations to the Court regarding the irreplaceable nature of his role in 

the defense’s case—that he was “acting as local counsel only and Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C., 

will be primarily handling the trial.” Id. Prior to filing this motion, Mr. Trauman did not confer 

with or in any way notify Morasch’s counsel of his intent to withdraw. Christian Decl., ¶ 23. 

Ms. Vocht subsequently informed Morasch’s counsel that Mr. Trauman’s motion made a critical 

misrepresentation to the Court regarding Defendants’ consent to his withdrawal; according to 

Ms. Vocht, she was not aware of Defendants consenting to the filing of his motion to withdraw 

and intended to notify the Court that Defendants did not consent to the motion. Id. 

The Court held telephonic oral argument on Mr. Trauman’s motion to withdraw on May 

4, 2018. See Order (Docket No. 199). At that hearing, the Court admonished Defendants’ 

Counsel to obtain new local counsel and provided them with twenty days in which to do so; it 

further informed them that it would grant Mr. Trauman’s motion to withdraw if new counsel did 

not appear within that time. See Minutes of Proceedings (Docket No. 200). At no point during 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 23 of 40
Page 20 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

the hearing did Mr. Trauman or Ms. Vocht attempt to correct Mr. Trauman’s misrepresentation 

to the Court regarding Defendants’ consent to his withdrawal. Christian Decl., ¶ 23. 

In yet another effort to avoid the trial of this matter, Defendants’ Counsel made only bare 

minimum efforts to obtain new local counsel, despite their full knowledge of the fact that failure 

to do so would result in an entry of default against Frevol and All Natural Freshness. According 

to Ms. Vocht, Mr. Trauman made no effort whatsoever to aid her or her clients in finding local 

counsel despite the fact that he created the situation and was best positioned to find available 

local counsel to aid Defendants. Id. ¶ 24 Morasch’s counsel conferred with Defendants’ 

Counsel on multiple occasions regarding their intent to seek entry of default and default 

judgment against the entity Defendants if new local counsel did not appear within the time set by 

the Court. Id. During each conference, Defendants’ Counsel indicated that although they could 

not agree to a default, they did not oppose the request nor did they discourage Morasch’s counsel 

from filing such a motion. Id. Defendants’ Counsel never indicated that any Defendant was

considering filing for bankruptcy, nor did they ever indicate to this Court that Defendants did not 

wish to proceed with having the case against them heard before it despite having clearing 

communicated that to Morasch’s counsel. Id. ¶ 25. On May 24, 2018, Ms. Vocht notified the 

Court that Defendants would not appear with new local counsel and her pro hac vice status was 

therefore ending. Id. ¶ 41, Ex. 13. 

Based on their conferences with Defendants’ Counsel, Morasch’s counsel spent time and 

incurred fees to prepare and file Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Default and 

Default Judgment Against Defendants Frevol HPP, LLC and All Natural Freshness, Inc. Only 

(Docket No. 207) (“Motion for Default”). Id. ¶ 26. On May 31, 2018, the Court held a 

telephone conference to discuss Defendants’ Counsel’s failure to obtain new local counsel, as 

well as the Motion for Default. See Minutes of Proceedings (Docket No. 216). During that 

telephone conference, the Court waived Local Rule 83-3(a)(1)’s local counsel requirement, 

ordered Ms. Vocht to “proceed as representing Defendants without local counsel,” and denied 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default as moot. See id. At no point during this hearing did Ms. Vocht 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 24 of 40
Page 21 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

indicate that she did not wish to move forward with representing Defendants (despite having 

communicated that to Morasch’s counsel), that Defendants did not wish to move forward with 

having the case against them heard by this Court, or that the Defendants were about to file 

bankruptcy and have a stay imposed on the litigation. Christian Decl., ¶ 26. This was true even 

though—unbeknownst to Morasch’s counsel and this Court—Mr. Ludwick had completed his 

required pre-bankruptcy credit counseling on May 29, 2018 (two days before the hearing), 

clearly indicating that he had already decided to file bankruptcy. Id. ¶ 26; id. ¶ 42, Ex. 14. 

Instead of being forthcoming with the information that Mr. Ludwick and his entities had 

decided to file for bankruptcy and have a stay imposed on the litigation, Ms. Vocht knowingly let 

Morasch’s counsel continue to exert efforts and incur substantial fees to prepare pre-trial 

submissions4 and conduct preparations for the fast-approaching trial. Id. ¶¶ 27, 28. Further—

despite her knowledge that Defendants were about to file bankruptcy and the litigation would be 

stayed—during meet-and-confer conversations, Ms. Vocht said nothing to discourage Morasch’s 

counsel from incurring additional time and fees to research, prepare, and file Plaintiff Morasch 

Meats, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of its Motion for Default (Docket No. 245) and/or the 

Reply in support thereof (Docket No. 249). Id. ¶ 27. In sum, Morasch’s counsel incurred 

 4 Between May 29, 2018 and June 19, 2018, Defendants’ Counsel knowingly let Morasch’s 

counsel incur wasted time and fees to prepare and file the following pleadings, which were due 

under the Court’s updated Jury Trial Management Order (Docket No. 186): (1) Plaintiff Morasch 

Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Exhibit List and trial exhibits (Docket No. 211); (2) Plaintiff 

Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Witness Statements (Docket No. 212); (3) Plaintiff 

Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Itemized List of Special Damages (Docket No. 213); (4) 

Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Deposition Designations (Docket No. 214); (5) 

Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Trial Memorandum (Docket No. 215); (6) Plaintiff 

Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Motions in Limine (Docket Nos. 228, 229, and 229-1 

through 229-2); (7) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Proposed Voir Dire Questions 

(Docket No. 230); (8) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Proposed Verdict Form 

(Docket No. 231); (9) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Objections to Defendants’ 

Supplemental Witness Statements (Docket No. 232); (10) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s 

Supplemental Objections to Defendants’ Supplemental Exhibit List (Docket No. 233); (11) 

Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Supplemental Objections to Defendants’ Supplemental 

Deposition Designations (Docket Nos. 234, 235, and 235-1); (12) the Supplemental Proposed 

Joint Jury Instructions (Docket No. 236); (13) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Witness List 

(Docket No. 239); and (14) Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Response to Defendants’ 

Supplemental Motion for Daubert Exclusion and in Limine (Docket Nos. 240 and 241).

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 25 of 40
Page 22 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

$29,725.00 in legal fees for the default motions that could have been avoided if Defendants’ 

Counsel had been forthcoming about Defendants’ intent to file bankruptcy and place a stay on 

this litigation as early as May 29, 2018, as fully detailed in Section V.F. below. Id. Morasch 

also incurred fees for pre-trial work from May 29, 2018 through June 21, 2018 (the date on 

which the bankruptcy stay was imposed), which was entirely unnecessary since Defendants’ 

Counsel knew that Defendants were preparing to file bankruptcy and stay the litigation. Those 

fees total $103,303.08, as fully detailed in Section V.F. below. Id.

V. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. The Applicable Rules

“District courts have the inherent power to sanction a lawyer for a ‘full range of litigation 

abuses.’” Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991)). When an attorney’s work product falls 

below the acceptable standards set out in the applicable rules, the Court is well within its power 

to address such failures and deter further abuses. Here, as fully described below, Morasch seeks 

the imposition of penalties to address Defendants’ Counsel’s failure to meet the minimum 

standards set forth in FRCP 11; the Oregon District Court’s Local Rules 83-3 and 83-7; and the 

Oregon District Court’s Statement of Professionalism. 

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11

FRCP 11 is intended to emphasize an attorney’s responsibilities in submitting pleadings, 

motions, and other papers to the Court and reinforce compliance with those responsibilities with 

the imposition of sanctions. See FRCP 11 advisory committee notes (1983 amendment); see also 

FRCP 11(b). Sanctions are generally appropriate when a court determines that FRCP 11(b) has 

been violated. FRCP 11(c)(1). If a party believes that opposing counsel is using motion 

practice, pleadings, and/or submission of other papers as a harassment tool for the improper 

purpose of delaying or needlessly increasing the cost of litigation, that party may call upon the 

court to consider sanctions. See FRCP 11(b)(1); Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 26 of 40
Page 23 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Sanctions are mandatory if the court concludes that Rule 11 has 

been violated.”).

FRCP 11 requires “reasonable inquiry” into the law and facts asserted by counsel to 

ensure that all pleadings “filed with the court are well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and ‘not 

interposed for any improper purpose.’” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 

(1990) (internal citations omitted). This rule creates an “affirmative duty of investigation both as 

to law and fact” before making any filing with the court. Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 

F.2d 1503, 1508 (9th Cir. 1987). In summary, FRCP 11’s prohibition on improper filings places 

“three duties” on attorneys. St. Amant v. Bernard, 859 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 1988); see also 

FRCP 11(b). First, “counsel must make a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of any 

pleading, motion, or other paper.” St. Amant, 859 F.2d at 382; FRCP 11(b)(3). Second, “counsel 

must make a reasonable inquiry into the law.” St. Amant, 859 F.2d at 382; FRCP 11(b)(2). 

Third, “counsel must not sign a pleading, motion, or other paper intended to delay proceedings, 

harass another party, or increase the costs of litigation.” St. Amant, 859 F.2d at 382; FRCP 

11(b)(1). By signing a pleading, an attorney certifies that: (1) the motion is not being presented 

for an “improper purpose”; (2) the legal contentions contained therein are “warranted by existing 

law”; (3) the “factual contentions have evidentiary support”; and (4) “the denials of factual 

contentions” are equally warranted. FRCP 11(b)(1)–(4). These basic certifications preserve the 

integrity of litigation, ensuring that lawyers do not resort to “baseless filings” and other such

“abuses.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’n Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 553 (1991).

“The reasonableness of [counsel’s] inquiry turns on the totality of the circumstances, 

including, for example, the time available for investigation and whether the attorney had to rely 

on the client, another member of the bar, or others.” Franklin v. Pinnacle Entm’t, Inc., 289 

F.R.D. 278, 286 (E.D. Mo. 2012) (quoting Thompson v. RelationServe Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 

628, 665 (11th Cir. 2010)). To constitute a “frivolous legal position for purposes of Rule 11 

sanction, it must be clear under existing precedents that there is no chance of success and no 

reasonable argument to extend, modify or reverse the law as it stands.” Mareno v. Rowe, 910 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 27 of 40
Page 24 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

F.2d 1043, 1047 (2d Cir. 1990). Importantly, sanctionable filings need not be wholly meritless; 

sanctions may be imposed for unsupported allegations in a filing, even when that same filing 

includes at least one non-frivolous theory. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 

1358, 1363–66 (9th Cir. 1990).

Sanctions may be imposed when “‘no reasonably competent attorney could conclude that 

[a claim] has a reasonable evidentiary basis.’” Franklin, 289 F.R.D. at 286 (quoting Thompson, 

610 F.3d at 665). “‘[W]here no evidence or only ‘patently frivolous’ evidence is offered to 

support factual contentions,’” a court will impose sanctions. Id. 

Upon finding that counsel has violated FRCP 11(b), a court’s broad discretion allows it to 

fashion a sanction as necessary “to deter repetition of the conduct,” which may include “an order 

directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other 

expenses directly resulting from the violation.” FRCP 11(c)(4). Sanctions may be monetary, 

such as payment of the opposing party’s fees or fines to the court; they may also be nonmonetary, in the form of striking pleadings, requiring amended pleadings, or requiring counsel to 

attend educational courses. See Franklin, 289 F.R.D. at 290–91. A court may also determine 

whether the party or the party’s counsel will be required to comply with the ordered sanctions. 

Id. at 290 (noting that the filing attorney would be sanctioned because there was “no indication 

the individual plaintiffs had any control over” the attorney’s conduct). 

2. Local Rule 83-3, Local Rule 83-7, and the Oregon District Court’s Statement 

of Professionalism

In addition to the FRCP 11 requirements, attorneys granted pro hac vice admission to the 

Oregon District Court certify that they have “read and understand the requirement of LR 83-3” 

and will associate with local counsel who makes the same certification. See Application for 

Special Admission – Pro Hac Vice (Docket No. 37); Order (Docket No. 43) (Court action 

approving Ms. Vocht’s pro hac vice application). Local Rule 83-3 requires that local counsel 

will “meaningfully participate in the preparation and trial of the case.” Local Rule 83-3(a)(1). 

All attorneys practicing law before this Court are required to “[b]e familiar and comply 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 28 of 40
Page 25 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

with the Oregon State Bar Standards of Professional Conduct and this Court’s Statement of 

Professionalism.” Local Rule 83-7(a). Attorneys have an obligation to maintain the respect due 

to this Court and discharge their duties “with the honesty, care, and decorum required for the fair 

and efficient administration of justice.” Local Rule 83-7(b)–(c). 

The Statement of Professionalism “applies to all attorneys” and includes a duty to 

practice with “integrity, courtesy, honesty, and willing compliance with the highest ethical 

standards.” STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONALISM: GENERAL GUIDELINES. The professionalism 

guidelines require a commitment to “promote the integrity, dignity, independent judgment, 

effectiveness, and efficiency of the legal system.” Id. § 1.1. Like FRCP 11, the guidelines 

require an oath to “not knowingly misstate facts or law . . . [or] cause a person to form a 

mistaken conclusion of facts or law” and to “refrain from asserting untenable positions.” Id. §§ 

1.9, 1.11. Falling below these standards and the FRCP 11 standards exposes a party, its counsel, 

and their respective law firms to sanctions. Because Morasch believes that Defendants’ Counsel 

has failed to meet these minimum standards, as described above and further detailed below, 

Morasch is entitled to the relief that it seeks in this Motion for Sanctions.

B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss failed to meet the minimum standards for pleadings, 

and sanctions are warranted.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss contained numerous unwarranted legal contentions, 

unsupported and incorrect fact allegations, indecipherable arguments, typographical errors, and

other inaccuracies. See generally Motion to Dismiss. Ultimately, this Court denied Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. See Opinion and Order (Docket No. 188), 3–8. Despite the 

unfounded nature of the Motion to Dismiss, Morasch had to pour considerable time and financial 

resources into preparing and filing Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Amended Motion Under 

Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(B)(6) – Statute of Limitations Fraud (Docket No. 142) (“Plaintiff’s Response 

to the Motion to Dismiss”), all of which would have been unnecessary had Defendants’ Counsel 

conformed to the basic standards set by FRCP 11(b), Local Rules 83-3 and 83-7, and the Oregon 

District Court’s Statement of Professionalism. For this reason, sanctions are warranted. 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 29 of 40
Page 26 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss highlights the many inaccuracies contained 

within the pleading filed by Defendants’ Counsel. See generally Plaintiff’s Response to the 

Motion to Dismiss. Morasch hereby incorporates by reference each of the errors of law and fact 

detailed in Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss as if fully restated herein. As a 

summary, Defendants’ Counsel’s errors included but were not limited to the following: 

• Defendants’ Counsel filed their Motion to Dismiss only after previously 

stipulating to the filing of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, which contained the fraud 

claim disputed in the Motion to Dismiss. See Stipulated Motion for Leave to File Second 

Amended Complaint (Docket No. 123). Defendants conceded to the filing of the Second 

Amended Complaint and then challenged the viability of the pleading’s fraud claim, resulting in 

an inefficient and expensive Motion to Dismiss. 

• Defendants’ Counsel misstated the standard of review for their Motion to Dismiss 

in at least two ways. First, Defendants’ Counsel instructed this Court to grant a motion to 

amend, even though no such motion was pending. Motion to Dismiss, 3–4. Second, Defendants’ 

Counsel instructed this Court to apply the de novo standard of review, even though this Court is 

not a court of review but a court of first impression on the Motion to Dismiss. See id. at 4.

• Defendants’ Counsel urged this Court to rely on the inapplicable and outdated 

decision in Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 403 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005),

amended and superseded by 416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005). See Motion to Dismiss, 3–4. 

• Defendants’ Counsel failed to include the controlling three-part test for 

determining whether a plaintiff has suffered a “legally cognizable harm” for purposes of 

pleading a viable fraud claim, as set forth by the Oregon Supreme Court in Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or. 247, 255–56 (1994). See Motion to Dismiss, 4–5. Rather than addressing this 

fundamental issue in challenging the fraud claim’s statute of limitations, Defendants’ Counsel 

instead simply stated that the “point in time of discovery of the fraud was known in 2013”—a 

statement that is not supported by any factual allegations. See id. at 5.

• Defendants’ Counsel directed the Court to a protracted discussion of cases 

pertaining to the medical malpractice statute of limitations, when the operative statute of 

limitations is entirely distinguishable and appears at ORS 12.110. See id. at 4–5. 

• Defendants’ Counsel neglected to inform the Court that in their discussion of the 

legislative history of the fraud statute of limitations, they largely relied upon the dissenting 

opinion in Gaston v. Parsons. See id. 

• Defendants’ Counsel made repeated factual assertions with no support to the 

record. See, e.g., id. at 8 n.6.

• Defendants’ Counsel directed the Court to a paragraph of the purported Second 

Amended Complaint that addressed “bulletproof glass,” but no such phrase appears anywhere in 

the Second Amended Complaint. Id. at 12; see Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. 125).

These errors, misstatements, and unsupported allegations created a burden upon 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 30 of 40
Page 27 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

Morasch’s counsel to locate errors, highlight those errors, and offer this Court correct statements

of law and/or fact, instead of allowing Morasch’s counsel to simply advocate for Morasch in 

Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss. This created inefficiencies and resulted in 

unnecessary costs to Morasch, in direct contravention of the purposes underlying FRCP 11 and 

this Court’s Local Rules. Accordingly, sanctions in the amount of $32,818.00 as stated in 

Section V.F. below, are appropriate and should be awarded by this Court.

C. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment failed to meet the minimum standards 

for pleadings, and sanctions are warranted.

The quality of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment also displays Defendants’ 

Counsel’s inattention to factual detail and legal accuracy. This Court ultimately denied 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, except to remove All Natural Freshness from the 

breach of contract claim pursuant to the Parties’ stipulations. See Opinion and Order (Docket 

No. 188). Again, despite the unsubstantiated nature of Defendants’ Counsel’s legal arguments, 

Morasch’s counsel was forced to research, resolve, and explain to this Court numerous legal and

factual inaccuracies in Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.’s Amended Response to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment–Counts I and II (Docket No. 150) (“Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment”). Morasch hereby incorporates by reference each 

of the errors of law and fact set forth in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment as if fully restated herein. The following summary highlights some but not all of the 

factual and legal misstatements contained in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment:

• Defendants’ Counsel presented their motion as a full summary judgment 

pleading, but the substance of the motion revealed that Defendants actually sought dispositive 

action only as to certain portions of Morasch’s Second Amended Complaint. Motion for 

Summary Judgment, 1, 28, 30, 38–42.

• Defendants’ Counsel presented incomplete exhibits to support their arguments 

and failed to notify the Court when relevant information was excluded. For example, 

Defendants’ Counsel stated that All Natural Freshness was “not even mentioned in Exhibit 1” to 

the Second Amended Complaint, but failed to include or acknowledge the email that transmitted 

Exhibit 1, which contained an All Natural Freshness signature and logo. Id. at 22. 

• Defendants’ Counsel relied upon statements from Mr. Ludwick’s supporting 

declaration, but either cited to the wrong paragraph or failed to acknowledge that the sworn 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 31 of 40
Page 28 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

statement did not match Defendants’ Counsel’s argument. For example, Defendants’ Counsel 

cited to “Ludwick Dcl.” without referencing a specific page or paragraph. See, e.g., id. To aid 

the Court, Morasch’s counsel directed the Court to the correct paragraph in Mr. Ludwick’s 

declaration. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 7. 

Unfortunately, the content of the referenced paragraph referred to a page that does not exist in 

the record. See id. Again, Morasch’s counsel made its best effort to direct the Court to the 

correct location in the record. See id. 

• Defendants’ Counsel referenced and quoted exhibits that were either misnamed, 

mis-numbered, or missing entirely. Motion for Summary Judgment, 3, 8, 22–23. Again, 

Morasch’s counsel exerted its best effort to correct these errors throughout its briefing to this 

Court. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 7–9, 14, 22, 33.

• Defendants’ Counsel represented that certain documents stood for a premise tied 

to a specific time, but neglected to inform the Court when they originated during an entirely 

different period. For example, Defendants’ Counsel stated that “Plaintiff knew and accepted that 

[Mr. Lockovitch] did not have authority to execute the contract.” Motion for Summary 

Judgment, 23 (erroneously citing to Exhibit 28). In fact, Morasch’s counsel believes that 

Defendants’ Counsel intended to refer to their Exhibit 29, which is an email sent more than a 

year after the relevant time period for determining Morasch’s knowledge of Mr. Lockovitch’s 

authority. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 14. 

• Defendants’ Counsel asked the Court to determine which contract and terms 

apply to and govern the Parties’ contractual relationship, yet they provided no guidance with 

regard to what Defendants believed to be the operative contract or terms. See Motion for 

Summary Judgment, 27–30.

• Defendants’ Counsel again raised their statute of frauds affirmative defense, 

which they previously stipulated was inapplicable to the facts of this case. Christian Decl., ¶ 23, 

Ex. 12. By arguing that nothing “smack[ed] of an electronic signature” in a manner sufficient to 

bind All Natural Freshness to the Parties’ contract, Defendants’ Counsel seemingly revived its 

abandoned statute of frauds affirmative defense. See Motion for Summary Judgment, 21.

• Defendants’ Counsel jumbled key arguments, forcing Morasch’s counsel to 

decipher the confusion to aid the Court. For example, Defendants’ Counsel blended various 

sections of the Parties’ contract in an effort to persuade the Court to invalidate its installation due 

date and late penalties. Id. at 5–9, 24–27. It took Morasch’s counsel twelve pages to make sense 

of this convoluted argument and explain Defendants’ Counsel’s errors and unsupported 

assertions. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 20–32.

• Defendants’ Counsel included multiple pages of unsupported facts in its argument 

regarding Morasch’s fraud claim, but they provided virtually no citation to the record in support 

of these alleged facts. See Motion for Summary Judgment, 30–38. To fully respond to 

Defendants’ Counsel’s factual allegations, Morasch’s counsel was required to create two tables 

identifying each factual statement, setting forth corrected citations to the record, and rebutting or 

correcting inaccuracies. Declaration of Dayna J. Christian in Support of Plaintiff Morasch 

Meats, Inc.’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment–Counts I and II, ¶ 52, Ex. 

A (Docket No. 148-44); id. ¶ 53, Ex. B (Docket No. 148-45).

• Defendants’ Counsel misrepresented Oregon law governing fraud claims, 

requiring Morasch’s counsel to correct various misrepresentations and provide accurate case law 

on these points. Motion for Summary Judgment, 30–38. 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment forced Morasch’s counsel to exert 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 32 of 40
Page 29 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

substantial effort engaging in tasks they simply should not have to complete. As detailed above, 

the errors in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment caused Morasch to incur significant 

fees while its counsel corrected factual misstatements, researched and responded to outdated case 

law, labored over indecipherable legal arguments, and wrote a comprehensive brief correcting 

Defendants’ Counsel’s repeated errors. This briefing was so complex it required Morasch to 

request this Court’s leave for additional pages in which to complete its response, resulting in a 

forty-eight-page brief supported by two lengthy declarations and forty-five exhibits. 

Under FRCP 11, Defendants’ Counsel should have never signed or filed their Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Prior to presenting their Motion for Summary Judgment to the Court, 

Defendants’ Counsel was required to exercise their duty of professionalism, diligently review the 

factual record, and ensure that their legal contentions were warranted under Oregon law. They 

failed to do so, resulting in considerable inefficiency and cost for Morasch and its counsel. For 

these reasons, sanctions in the amount of $200,000.00 as more fully described in Section V.F.

below, are appropriate and should be awarded to Morasch. 

D. Defendants’ Counsel has disregarded the Local Rules. 

Defendants’ Counsel’s conduct and filings as described above were unreasonable from 

the perspective of a competent attorney admitted to practice before the Oregon District Court and 

fell below the standard of professionalism required by the Local Rules. As clearly set forth 

above, Defendants’ Counsel’s motions and pleadings have frequently asserted factually baseless 

claims and contained egregious errors of law that demonstrated a consistent pattern of 

carelessness and unprofessionalism. 

When faced with a strikingly similar situation, the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Missouri issued an award of sanctions. In Franklin v. Pinnacle

Entertainment, Inc., an attorney was sanctioned for multiple reasons, including: serious filing 

errors and omissions; knowing advocacy of a factually baseless claim; and demonstrating a 

general “lack of care” as “part of a pattern” in which most documents filed by the attorney were 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 33 of 40
Page 30 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

“riddled with egregious typographical errors and basic grammatical errors.” Franklin, 289 

F.R.D. at 280, 288, 290. The Franklin court concluded that the attorney was either unable or 

unwilling to comply with the relevant FRCPs and Local Rules and determined that the offending 

pleadings were “unnecessarily burdensome.” Id. at 290 (stating that the attorney’s errors and 

vague, imprecise assertions required the court to “spend an unusual amount of time” trying to 

ascertain the assertions raised by counsel in his pleadings). The Franklin court stated that the 

offending attorney should “know the importance of accuracy in the pleadings and other 

documents he files with the Court, and of complying with Court rules and procedures.” Id. 

The pleadings submitted by Defendants’ Counsel are similarly disrespectful to Morasch 

and this Court. They demonstrate a consistent lack of care that adversely impacted this Court’s 

ability to fairly and efficiently administer justice, in direct violation of the Local Rules. See 

Local Rule 83-7(b)–(c). As fully explained above, Defendants’ Counsel’s legal arguments have 

often been indecipherable and unsubstantiated, and their pleadings have frequently referenced

inaccurate exhibits and unsupportive citations; further, many of their arguments cited to no 

factual basis whatsoever. As a result, Morasch’s counsel has spent countless hours analyzing the 

many theories Defendants’ Counsel may have been asserting, finding and correcting errors 

contained in Defendants’ Counsel’s arguments, and putting forth their best effort to offer this 

Court accurate evidence and legal authorities to dispose of Defendants’ Counsel’s arguments. 

Such conduct was subject to sanctions in Franklin, and the same result should apply in the 

present case. See Franklin, 289 F.R.D. at 290.

Relatedly, throughout this litigation Morasch’s counsel had very limited contact with Ms. 

Vocht’s local counsel, Mr. Trauman. The degree of communication with Mr. Trauman led 

Morasch’s counsel to conclude that he was wholly detached from this case, even prior to his 

withdrawal as counsel of record for Defendants. Christian Decl., ¶ 28. If that was the case, Mr. 

Trauman was in direct violation of FRCP 11 and Local Rule 83. Even if Mr. Trauman was

guiding Ms. Vocht in accordance with his responsibilities under Local Rule 83-7, his conduct 

still failed to meet the minimum standards of professionalism, as he endorsed many deficient 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 34 of 40
Page 31 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

filings that unnecessarily increased the cost of litigation and created vast inefficiencies for 

Morasch and this Court. Further, according to Ms. Vocht, upon his withdrawal as local counsel 

Mr. Trauman made no effort whatsoever to aid her or Defendants in finding new local counsel, 

despite the fact that he was responsible for creating the circumstances necessitating new local 

counsel and was best positioned to find available local counsel to aid Defendants. Id. ¶ 24. 

Defendants’ Counsel’s filings and conduct throughout this litigation demonstrate a 

disregard for the requirements of FRCP 11, Local Rule 83, and the Oregon District Court’s 

Statement of Professionalism. Defendants’ Counsel’s pleadings are plagued with typographical 

errors, erroneous record citations, misstatements of fact, unsupported allegations and legal 

conclusions, and incomplete sentences and citations. Defendants’ Counsel has violated this 

Court’s directive to “solve problems, not create or exacerbate them.” STATEMENT OF 

PROFESSIONALISM: GENERAL GUIDELINES § 1.13. Defendants’ Counsel’s pleadings and conduct 

have exacerbated the legal work required by this Court and have caused unnecessary and 

excessive cost to Morasch, for which it seeks the imposition of sanctions detailed below. 

E. Morasch is entitled to an imposition of sanctions against Defendants’ Counsel.

For Defendants’ Counsel’s conduct, pleadings, and motions that violate FRCP 11 and/or 

this Court’s Local Rules and Statement of Professionalism, Morasch seeks:

• To respond to and argue Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend 

Counterclaim (Docket No. 100), Morasch incurred fees in the amount of $13,785.00. 

Morasch does not seek an imposition of monetary sanctions because the motion was 

withdrawn by Defendants’ Counsel after it had been fully briefed and argued. Instead, 

Morasch asks that Defendants’ Counsel be admonished for improper and unsupported 

motion practice. 

• As a result of Defendants’ Counsel’s filing of Defendants’ Motion for 

Protective Order (Docket No. 104), Morasch incurred $5,962.50 in fees. As fully described 

in Section IV above, this motion was entirely unsupported by Oregon law, Morasch’s 

counsel clearly explained that to Defendants’ Counsel before the motion was filed, and the 

motion was summarily denied by this Court. The full measure of Morasch’s counsel’s fees 

in responding to this motion is an appropriate sanction against Defendants’ Counsel because 

the motion was entirely unsupported by the applicable laws, and neither Morasch, 

Defendants, nor the litigation process derived any value from the filing of this motion.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 35 of 40
Page 32 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

• Defendants’ Counsel’s demand to take post-discovery de bene esse 

depositions was likewise unsupported by Oregon law and ultimately conceded by 

Defendants’ Counsel after Morasch’s counsel incurred time and fees to research and educate 

them on this issue, as fully described in Section IV above. Morasch incurred a total of 

$1,365.00 in fees in responding to Defendants’ Counsel’s improper demand for postdiscovery depositions and requests that this full amount be imposed as a sanction against 

Defendants’ Counsel.

• Throughout the litigation, Defendants’ Counsel has produced documents with 

missing and duplicated Bates Numbers, as fully described in Section IV above. Morasch’s 

counsel was required to incur $2,655.00 in fees to correct these errors and assist Defendants’ 

Counsel in properly producing documents. Morasch is entitled to recover these fees, as they 

represent increased costs that were the direct result of Defendants’ Counsel’s inefficiency 

and lack of professionalism. 

• Morasch incurred $32,818.00 in fees to confer regarding, brief, respond, and 

reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Morasch is entitled to a sanctions award in this full 

amount because the motion was riddled with errors, inaccuracies, and was entirely 

unsupported by the applicable laws, as fully described in Sections V.B. above. 

• The Parties’ motions for summary judgment contained cross-motions on topics 

that were ultimately conceded by Defendants’ Counsel as fully described in Sections V.C

above. Morasch incurred $279,370.00 in total on both Parties’ motions for summary 

judgment. Of that amount, Morasch requests that Defendants’ Counsel be sanctioned 

$200,000.00, which is roughly seventy-five percent of the total fees. Morasch approximates 

to the best of its ability that at least half of the combined fees (roughly $140,000.00) for these 

motions reflect the fees incurred by Morasch to respond to Defendants’ Counsel’s 

unsupported, erroneous, and inaccurate motion. Another twenty-five percent of the fees 

(roughly $60,000.00) were incurred for issues in Morasch’s own motion and reply that were 

ultimately conceded by Defendants’ Counsel, rendering these efforts unnecessary. Morasch 

does not seek sanctions for the remainder of the total fees, as that amount reflects the fees 

generated by the valuable aspects of this motion practice. Morasch is entitled to sanctions 

for all work that could have been avoided if Defendants’ Counsel had properly conferred and 

adequately researched their positions before the motions were filed. Morasch asks that at

least $200,000.00 be imposed as a sanction against Defendants’ Counsel.

• To challenge Defendants’ Counsel’s unauthorized additions to their Answer to 

the Second Amended Complaint (as fully described in Section IV above), Morasch incurred 

$33,908.00 in fees. Morasch should never have been required to incur these fees, nor should 

Morasch’s counsel have been required to take time and resources away from trial 

preparations to challenge Defendants’ Counsel’s late and unauthorized addition of expanded 

affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Thus, it is appropriate to sanction Defendants’ 

Counsel for the full amount of these fees.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 36 of 40
Page 33 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

• Defendants’ Counsel’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions were 

improper and rendered the value of this discovery tool virtually worthless, as fully described 

in Section IV above. Defendants’ Counsel refused to supplement or amend their responses, 

and their cavalier and irresponsible responses warrant the imposition of sanctions. The 

preparation and conferring process on the Requests for Admissions served on each 

Defendant resulted in $9,083.00 in fees. Of that amount, Morasch estimates to the best of its 

ability that thirty percent of the Requests for Admissions’ value was rendered useless. As 

such, Morasch seeks the imposition of $2,724.90 in sanctions against Defendants’ Counsel.

• Defendants’ Counsel’s false and derogatory allegation that Morasch’s counsel 

engaged in an illegal wiretap (as fully detailed in Section IV above) caused Morasch to incur 

$90.00 in fees to defend against this serious criminal allegation. This modest amount of fees 

does not reflect the unbilled time, effort, and distraction incurred by Morasch’s counsel to 

research and address this very serious allegation. Morasch asks that the Court consider a 

sanctions award beyond the actual fees incurred by Morasch in an amount that the Court sees 

fit to deter similar future conduct. 

• During pre-trial preparation, Morasch’s counsel worked unsuccessfully to 

engage Defendants’ Counsel in cooperating to draft the joint jury instruction submission and 

to resolve objections to the proposed trial exhibits. These efforts were unsuccessful, as fully 

described in Section IV above. These efforts caused Morasch to incur fees in the amount of 

$21,518.00. At least half of these fees could have been avoided if Defendants’ Counsel had 

participated in good faith in the conferring process and/or had participated in the preparation 

of the joint submission. As such, sanctions in the amount of $10,759.00 is appropriate. 

• Morasch’s request for provisional process (as fully described in Section IV 

above) is a further example of Defendants’ Counsel’s sanctionable conduct. Morasch’s 

counsel conferred on the substance of the request, but Defendants’ Counsel refused to 

consider the request until after the matter was fully briefed for the Court. Only then did 

Defendants’ Counsel stipulate to the requested relief. The fees for this motion practice 

totaled $31,743.75 and could have been avoided if Defendants’ Counsel had made a good 

faith effort to confer with Morasch’s counsel. Morasch seeks the imposition of monetary 

damages for the full amount of those fees.

• The trial delays caused by Defendants’ Counsel’s conduct caused Morasch to 

incur unnecessary fees in preparing the case for trial. In March 2018, Mr. Trauman sought 

and obtained a set-over of the trial date just weeks before trial, as fully described in Section 

IV above. Mr. Trauman had long known that he might become unavailable for trial, but he 

made no effort to assist Defendants in seeking aid to proceed to trial; Mr. Trauman then 

withdrew from the case. From January 2, 2018—when pre-trial preparations began in 

earnest—until the issuance of the trial continuance by the Court on March 1, 2018, Morasch 

incurred $81,945.38 in fees and costs. As a result of Mr. Trauman’s late demand for a set 

over, Morasch estimates to the best of its ability that twenty percent of its pre-trial fees and 

costs were rendered valueless, which totals $16,389.08. Thus, sanctions in this amount are 

appropriate.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 37 of 40
Page 34 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

• Mr. Trauman’s request for a set-over of the trial appears to have been 

orchestrated to allow him room to withdraw as counsel, as fully described in Section IV 

above. His withdrawal led to a situation where default of the entity Defendants was 

mandatory, which required Morasch to incur $15,122.50 in fees to prepare and file the 

Motion for Default and $14,602.50 in fees to prepare and file the Motion for Reconsideration

of the Motion for Default (Docket No. 245). These motion practice fees could have been 

avoided if Defendants’ Counsel had been forthcoming with regard to their position in the 

case and intent to avoid proceeding to trial. Morasch is entitled to sanctions in each of those 

amounts, which totals $29,725.00. 

• As fully described in Section IV above, Defendant Mr. Ludwick prepared to 

file for bankruptcy as early as May 29, 2018; despite this fact, Defendants’ Counsel allowed 

Morasch to continue to prepare for trial until June 21, 2018 when the entire case was stayed 

by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan, just days before 

trial. Between these dates, Morasch incurred $103,303.08 in pre-trial preparation fees and 

costs. These fees and costs are a direct result of Defendants’ Counsel’s abuse of the 

litigation process, and Morasch is entitled to that full measure of sanctions. 

• The preparation of this Motion for Sanctions (both the originally filed motion 

and the supplemental motion) cost Morasch a total of $40,927.50 in fees. Morasch seeks this 

full amount as a sanction against Defendants’ Counsel.

In total, Morasch seeks the imposition of $512,370.81 in sanctions against Defendants’ 

Counsel, jointly and severally, for their combined efforts to violate Rule 11 and this Court’s 

Local Rules. Morasch bore the very real cost of their behavior and conduct during the pendency 

of this litigation, and sanctions are appropriate.

VI. CONCLUSION

This case has been pending for over two years, with discovery concluding on October 16, 

2017. Order (Docket No. 113); Complaint (Docket No. 1). Defendants’ Counsel had more than 

adequate time to fully investigate and form comprehensive theories regarding Morasch’s claims, 

Defendants’ affirmative defenses, and all issues related thereto prior to bringing the motions and 

pleadings and engaging in the conduct that forms the basis of this Motion for Sanctions. 

Morasch’s counsel has no qualms about engaging in a robust litigation on the merits of 

this case. Here, however, the litigation has transformed into a seemingly endless chore of 

correcting misstatements, deciphering poorly articulated legal arguments, correcting legal 

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 38 of 40
Page 35 of 35 – PLAINTIFF MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

citations, and urging a non-Oregon attorney to better confer with local counsel. While limited 

errors are understandable, the pervasive unprofessionalism and inaccuracies in Defendants’ 

Counsel’s conduct and pleadings rises to the level of sanctionable conduct and has unnecessarily 

increased Morasch’s litigation costs and the length of Morasch’s responsive filings. 

For the reasons stated herein, Morasch respectfully requests that this Court grant its 

Motion for Sanctions and impose sanctions in the amount of $512,370.81 against Defendants’ 

Counsel pursuant to FRCP 11, as well as any other monetary or non-monetary relief the Court 

finds fit to impose.

DATED: July 5, 2018

IMMIX LAW GROUP PC

Dayna J. Christian, OSB #97336

Nicole McMillan, OSB #114573

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, Oregon 97209

Phone: (503) 802-5533

Fax: (503) 802-5351

E-Mail: dayna.christian@immixlaw.com

E-Mail: nicole.mcmillan@immixlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 39 of 40
Page 1 of 1 – CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, OR 97209

Telephone: 503-802-5533

Facsimile: 503-802-5351

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 5, 2018, I served a true copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF

MORASCH MEATS, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SANCTIONS on the 

attorney(s) listed below by the method(s) indicated below on said day.

Alexander C. Trauman Via E-Mail 

Motschenbacher & Blattner LLP

117 SW Taylor St., Suite 300

Portland, OR 97204

atrauman@portlaw.com

Michelle E. Vocht Via E-Mail

Roy, Shecter & Vocht, P.C. 

707 S. Eton St.

Birmingham, MI 48009

vocht@rsmv.com

Attorneys for Defendants

IMMIX LAW GROUP PC

Dayna J. Christian, OSB #97336

Nicole McMillan, OSB #114573

Immix Law Group PC

600 NW Naito Parkway, Suite G

Portland, Oregon 97209

Phone: (503) 802-5533

Fax: (503) 802-5351

E-Mail: dayna.christian@immixlaw.com

E-Mail: nicole.mcmillan@immixlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Morasch Meats, Inc.

Case 3:16-cv-00269-PK Document 254 Filed 07/05/18 Page 40 of 40