From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gillaspy v. Town of Silver City

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Jun 5, 2007
No. CIV-06-284 MV-CG (D.N.M. Jun. 5, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV-06-284 MV-CG.

June 5, 2007

Attorney for Plaintiffs, Douglas Craig Littlejohn, Silver City, NM.

Attorney for Defendant Town of Silver City, Lawrence R. White, Las Cruces, NM.

Attorney for Defendant William R. Hankins, Mark A. Filosa, Truth or Consequences, NM.

Attorney for Defendant Mogollon Corp., Mark A. Filosa, Truth or Consequences, NM.

Attorney for Defendant Vic Topmiller, Thomas F. Stewart, Silver City, NM.

Attorney for Defendant Sun Mountain America, Thomas F. Stewart, Silver City, NM.

Attorneys for Defendant Robert M. Rowland, Meena H. Allen, Randal W. Roberts, Albuquerque, NM, William Perkins, Silver City, NM.

Attorney for Defendant State of New Mexico, CaraLyn Banks, Thomas A. Sandenaw, Jr., Las Cruces, NM.

Attorney for Defendant Carol Thompson, J. Monty Stevens, El Paso, TX.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against Defendant, State of New Mexico (Doc. No. 172, filed April 26, 2007, "Motion").

Plaintiffs seek Rule 11 sanctions against Defendant State of New Mexico because "Plaintiffs have been deluged with an onslaught of motion work by Defendant, State of New Mexico, that is largely frivolous, specious, inaccurate, conclusory, or some combination thereof." (Motion at 2). Defendant State of New Mexico contends, and Plaintiffs admit, that Plaintiffs did not provide Defendant State of New Mexico with a copy of their motion for sanctions during the 21-day safe harbor period prior to filing their motion, as required by Rule 11. (Response at 2-3, Doc. No. 181, filed May 9, 2007; Reply at 2, Doc. No. 196, filed May 29, 2007). Rule 11 provides that a motion for Rule 11 sanctions "shall not be filed with . . . the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion . . . the challenged paper . . . is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(A). The Court will, therefore, deny Plaintiffs' Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions against Defendant, State of New Mexico (Doc. No. 172, filed April 26, 2007).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gillaspy v. Town of Silver City

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Jun 5, 2007
No. CIV-06-284 MV-CG (D.N.M. Jun. 5, 2007)
Case details for

Gillaspy v. Town of Silver City

Case Details

Full title:LARRY GILLASPY and CONNIE SCORZA, individually and as Husband and Wife…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Jun 5, 2007

Citations

No. CIV-06-284 MV-CG (D.N.M. Jun. 5, 2007)