UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PT PUKUAFU INDAH, PT LEBONG

TANDAI, PT TANJUNG SERA PUNG,

GIDEON MINERALS U.S.A., INC.,

and DR. LEONARD L.J. YOUNG,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-10943

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

UNITED STATES SECURITIES &

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, MARY

J. SCHAPIRO, THE EXPORT IMPORT

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, FRED P.

HOCHBERG, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.,

NEWMONT MINING CORP., GOLDMAN 

SACHS GROUP, INC., 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLC,

JAMES NELSON LANE, DEVONWOOD

CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and

NEW CANAAN SOCIETY,

Defendants.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan, on January 19, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On November 4, 2009, this Court issued an opinion and order granting Defendant

Newmont Mining Corporation’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiffs and their

counsel. The Court held inter alia that Newmont Mining Corporation (“Newmont”) is

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 111 Filed 01/19/10 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2591
2

entitled to “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and expenses it incurred in defending

against th[is] lawsuit” and indicated that such sanctions would be imposed “upon

Newmont’s submission of adequate proofs establishing those fees and costs[.]” (Doc. 102

at 7, 13.) On November 20, 2009, Newmont submitted its proof of attorneys’ fees, costs,

and expenses, totaling $107,369.53. Plaintiffs filed a response to Newmont’s submission

on December 21, 2009; Newmont filed a reply on January 5, 2010. For the reasons that

follow, the Court awards as sanctions the full amount that Newmont seeks.

In its November 20, 2009 submission, Newmont provides billing records and

affidavits from its attorneys supporting its total attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of

$107,369.53. The Court finds reasonable the hourly rates of Newmont’s counsel and the

hours billed in defense of this lawsuit. The Court believes that Newmont acted promptly

to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against it and that Plaintiffs’ repetitive and frivolous filings

are what drove up the expenses incurred by Newmont. The Court further believes that

awarding Newmont full compensation for its fees, costs, and expenses is not overly harsh

and reflects an amount necessary to deter Plaintiffs from continuing their pattern of

misconduct in litigation.

In response to Newmont’s submission, Plaintiffs do not challenge the amount of

Newmont’s fees, costs, or expenses. Instead, Plaintiffs continue to argue the merits of

their claims and the Court’s jurisdiction over Newmont. They also point out that they

have appealed the Court’s decisions, including its dismissal of Newmont for lack of

personal jurisdiction and its award of Rule 11 sanctions. None of these arguments

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 111 Filed 01/19/10 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2592
3

convince the Court that monetary sanctions in an amount equal to Newmont’s attorneys’

fees, costs, and expenses are inappropriate. In fact, Plaintiffs’ persistence in continuing to

argue issues that this Court already has rejected and deemed frivolous on a number of

occasions supports such sanctions.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel, Reifman & Glass, P.C.

and Steven W. Reifman, are jointly and severally liable to Newmont for sanctions in the

amount of $107,369.53, which amount shall be paid within thirty (30) days from this

Opinion and Order.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Steven W. Reifman, Esq.

Eugene Driker, Esq.

Todd R. Mendel, Esq.

Mark Wielga, Esq.

Radcliffe Dann IV, Esq.

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 111 Filed 01/19/10 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2593