Opinion
95 Civ. 5114 (TPG)
February 2, 2000
OPINION
On April 13, 1999 the court issued an opinion granting defendant's motion to dismiss this action, holding that sanctions should be imposed on plaintiff, and granting the request of Sharon Lipshie to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. The court requested defendant to submit an application for the specific amount of sanctions.
Subsequent to the April 13, 1999 opinion defendant submitted an affidavit of David H. Fromm, Esq. of the firm of Chalos Brown, attorneys for defendant, requesting sanctions in the amount of $27,319.78. The affidavit contained a description of the services performed by Chalos Brown, supported by detailed invoices rendered by that firm to defendant. These invoices covered fee and disbursements.
Plaintiff did not obtain an attorney to replace Sharon Lipshie. Instead, plaintiff has submitted a total of ten letters pro se, protesting the dismissal of the action and the imposition of sanctions. The first of these letters is dated April 28, 1999 and the last is dated September 9, 1999.
At the request of the court, Joseph Morrone, Jr. of Sharon Lipshie, former counsel for plaintiff, participated in a telephone conference call on June 14, 1999, as did Bruce Rebenstorf, a principal of Intercontinental Resources, and David F. Fromm of Chalos Brown, counsel for defendant.
None of the submissions made pro se by plaintiff, nor anything presented in the telephone conference, demonstrates any reason why the court's opinion of April 13, 1999 should be reconsidered or revised, nor is there any indication of a valid reason for not imposing sanctions on plaintiff, as decided in that opinion. For one thing, no copy of the alleged contract, upon which this action was based, has yet to be produced. In fact, plaintiff's letter of April 28, 1999 (par. 7) indicates quite clearly that there is in fact no such contract. The letter states that various agencies and officials of the Nigerian Government had submitted numerous documents to plaintiff "which would lead any reasonable person to believe that they in fact had a valid contract/claim with the Nigerian Government." In other words, the contract alleged in the complaint does not exist. Moreover, plaintiff in effect admits in the April 28 letter that the work under the alleged contract was not performed, contrary to the allegation in the complaint.
The court now reaffirms that defendant is entitled to sanctions against plaintiff. The amount of such sanctions is $27,319.78.
Defendant is to submit an appropriate judgment.
SO ORDERED.