Opinion ID: 175402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sanctions Litigation

Text: Appellees initially moved for Rule 11 sanctions in conjunction with their motion to dismiss Lawrence's first amended complaint. Soon after the district court dismissed that complaint, the magistrate judge (to whom the Rule 11 motion had been referred) determined that the sanctions motion should be denied without prejudice to renew. Lawrence v. Richman Grp . of Conn., LLC, No. 3:03 CV 850, slip op. at 7 (D.Conn. Mar. 9, 2005). In so ruling, the magistrate judge directed defendants to defer filing any renewed motion until the district court determined what, if any, of Lawrence's claims would proceed. Neither party filed objections with the district court. On December 20, 2005some nine months after Lawrence filed the second amended complaint and four months after the district court denied reconsideration of dismissaldefendants renewed their motion for Rule 11 sanctions. On March 10, 2006, the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and awarding monetary sanctions for the time expended by defense counsel on plaintiff's contract claim after the district court's March 2005 dismissal of the first amended complaint. See Lawrence v. Richman Grp . of Conn., LLC, No. 3:03 CV 850, 2006 WL 908453 (D.Conn. Mar. 10, 2006). Rejecting Lawrence's objections to this recommendation, the district court awarded Rule 11 sanctions on December 28, 2006, finding that, despite his representations to the court, Lawrence did not have a reasonable basis in law and fact to pursue his contract claim in an Article III proceeding after the Court's March 2005 ruling. Lawrence v. Richman Grp . of Conn., LLC, No. 3:03 CV 850, 2006 WL 3826684, at -6 (D.Conn. Dec. 28, 2006). Lawrence unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, arguing inter alia that his counsel's consultations with securities experts before filing the second amended complaint demonstrated a reasonable basis for renewing the contract claim. Lawrence v. Richman Grp . of Conn., LLC, No. 3:03 CV 850, 2007 WL 2255126, at  (D.Conn. Aug. 3, 2007). Extensive litigation thereafter ensued to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded, culminating in the final October 23, 2009 judgment challenged on appeal.