Source: https://fedcivilprocedure.com/2017/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:25:44+00:00

Document:
We hold that the District Court’s refusal to reach the merits of the Rule 11 motion was in error. A district court “must resolve any issues about imposition of sanctions,” including Rule 11 sanctions, “prior to, or contemporaneously with, entering final judgment.” Gary, 517 F.3d at 202. This obligation to resolve “collateral issues” is not mooted “after an action is no longer pending,” Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 137-38 (1992) (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990)), for a district court retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim giving rise to the sanctionable conduct, Lazorko v. Pa. Hosp., 237 F.3d 242, 247 (3d Cir. 2000). Here, therefore, the final judgment on the Brice’s claims against Bauer did not moot Bauer’s Rule 11 motion, and the District Court erred by declining to decide that motion on its merits.
Because we do not ordinarily consider issues not passed upon below, Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc., 815 F.3d 142, 149 (3d Cir. 2016), and because “motions under Rule 11 must be decided in the first instance by the trial court absent extraordinary circumstances,” Gary, 517 F.3d at 202-03, we will not consider the parties’ arguments on the merits of Bauer’s Rule 11 motion and we will remand for the District Court to address the merits of Bauer’s Rule 11 motion in the first instance. While the Brices object that further proceedings in the District Court may duplicate a parallel sanctions determination in state court under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.2, we are persuaded that the proceedings will address—and may impose different sanctions for—different alleged misconduct. That is, the District Court’s Rule 11 determination will address whether the Brices’ earlier filings in federal court warrant sanctions, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, while any state court determination under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.2 will address whether the Brices’ subsequent filings in state court warrant sanctions, see Robinson v. State Emps.’ Ret. Bd., No. 1136 C.D. 2014, 2015 WL 5314660, at *5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 10, 2015). Thus, we perceive no judicial economy concerns arising from the two sanctions determinations proceeding concurrently.
Another pro se case of interest. After a storm and serious flooding, the plaintiff had to abandon her vehicle. Her car was then towed by the defendants. Plaintiff sued them in federal court apparently because she believed the defendants stole her personal possessions out of her car. The defendants claimed that they had been authorized to tow the car, but plaintiff challenged the veracity of their claims.
The case was eventually dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the alleged damages did not exceed $75,000. The defendants moved for sanctions on the ground that the plaintiff maintained the litigation after she knew it was baseless.
This is an opinion granting Capital One Bank’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions in the third of three lawsuits that challenged a foreclosure.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s counsel, J.J. Sandlin, violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 by filing this lawsuit when he knew, based on his involvement in Alexander II and communications with Defendants’ counsel, that the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint were baseless and/or precluded. Defendants further allege that Mr. Sandlin and Plaintiff knowingly filed a baseless lawsuit in an effort to delay the Alexanders’ eviction. See Dkt. # 30, ¶ 4.
In response to Defendants’ motion for sanctions, Plaintiff does not refute Defendants’ claim that a competent inquiry would have revealed this lawsuit to be legally baseless. Rather, Plaintiff explains that it first filed this frivolous lawsuit, then deliberately waited to serve process while Mr. Sandlin investigated whether the suit had any merit. In Plaintiff’s own words: “the efforts of [Plaintiff] and its attorney reflect the essence of good faith. . . . In its conservative position, [Plaintiff] purposefully declined to perfect original service of process, relying upon Rule 4(m) to cause the potential lawsuit to expire by operation of law. . . . As the plaintiff continued to test its position it ultimately determined the action should not be commenced, and deliberately failed to perfect original service of process.” Dkt. # 34 at 11-12. Because service never occurred, Plaintiff argues, this case must be dismissed and the “motion for sanctions should not proceed to judgment.” Dkt. # 34 at 7 n.2.
Plaintiff and Mr. Sandlin have essentially conceded that they intentionally wasted the Court’s time by filing — and then litigating rather than voluntarily dismissing — a frivolous lawsuit. Such conduct is hardly “the essence of good faith.” An award of attorneys’ fees under RCW 4.84.185 and sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 are entirely appropriate under the circumstances.
The court awarded sanctions against both the plaintiff and the attorney.
And, the court explained, plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims arise under state law, not federal law, even though she attempts to invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See id. (citing Creamer v. Gen. Motors, Nos. 16-4045-SAC, et al., 2016 WL 3197379, at *5 (D. Kan. May 18, 2016) (concluding that plaintiff failed to allege federal question jurisdiction because her citation to the ADA “has no plausible application to plaintiff’s claims that defendant committed legal malpractice” and “absent diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy over $75,000—which do not exist here—plaintiff’s state law claims of legal malpractice, assuming of course they have any merit, belong in state court”)).
Plaintiff submitted a response to the Show Cause Order. Doc. 5. But, like her Complaint, her response failed to provide any colorable basis for this court to invoke its limited subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, plaintiff reiterated that she was asserting legal malpractice claims against defendants. Id. at 1-4. She provided no basis for the court to exercise federal question or diversity jurisdictAnd, the court explained, plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims arise under state law, not federal law, even though she attempts to invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Sion. See generally id. So, the court dismissed her lawsuit without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Doc. 6.
This lawsuit relates to a suspicious death in Michigan – the death of Joan Matouk Romain. Did she commit suicide or was she murdered? There are two versions of the events.
Ms. Romain’s estate sued a number of individuals who were allegedly involved in her wrongful death, including Timothy Matouk. Matouk moved for sanctions on the ground that his cell phone records and work records show that he was elsewhere when Ms. Romain disappeared. He argued that the plaintiffs had sufficient information that should have led them to remove him from the case because he had no involvement in the wrongful death.
Matouk and two other individuals may have testified that Matouk was working on a multi-jurisdiction task force in Warren the evening Romain disappeared. Nevertheless, Matouk has not pointed this Court to specific testimony representing that he was elsewhere when Hawk claims to have seen him in Grosse Pointe Farms or accounting for his whereabouts at any specific time. In any event, whether to believe Hawk versus another individual who may testify that Matouk was elsewhere raises a credibly question for a jury. It is not a question for this Court to resolve here and the fact that a question exists suggests that there is no basis for sanctions.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.