Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03 CV 71319 DT.
June 8, 2004
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
The matter before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c). Plaintiff contends that the Answer filed by the United States violates Rule 11. Plaintiff brought this pro se suit against Defendant alleging multiple counts of constitutional, federal and state law violations arising out of an allegedly illegal property seizure and subsequent sale. Plaintiff alleges each of Defendant's four defenses, as well as Defendant's answers to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint are either frivolous, fraudulent misrepresentations, outrageous, or malicious in nature. In the United States Sixth Circuit, "the test for imposition of Rule 11 sanctions, remains . . . 'whether the individual's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.'" Union Planters Bank v. L J Development Company, 115 F.3d 378, 384 (6th Cir. 1997), citing Lemaster v. United States, 891 F.2d 115, 118 (6th Cir. 1989). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (c) does not meet this standard and IS DENIED.
First, each of the claims raised by Defendant are valid defenses. The Answer is merely a way of determining what allegations are admitted and what are in dispute, and provides the answering party an opportunity to raise affirmative defenses. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's complaint improperly names the "Internal Revenue Service," instead of the United States, citing Kruzel v. IRS Revenue Officer, 1996 WL 302854 (W.D. Mich. 1996). Defendant also alleges that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6) based upon the previous finding by the Michigan Court of Appeals that plaintiff lacked any interest in the subject property at the time it was seized. See Jarvi v. McCarthy, 1996 WL 33349364 (Mich.App.), appeal denied, 456 Mich. 885 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1061 (1998). Both of these are properly raised in an Answer. Further, raising the defenses of sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction are also proper under the pleading standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
In addition, Defendant's answers to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the complaint denying the factual claims are proper. Plaintiff's claim in paragraph 8 of the complaint is that the IRS filed a "fraudulent lien" against his "contract" and in paragraph 9 that that lien fraudulently named a person named "Patricia" who held no right or title to the property. Plaintiff now claims as a basis for sanctions that "the IRS answer is fraud, Judith Kruszyna (was) an IRS employee." Defendants correctly note that Ms. Kruszyna is not mentioned at all in paragraph 8 of the complaint. She is mentioned in paragraph 10 but not explicitly as an employee of the IRS. Defendants neither affirm nor deny her status with the IRS. Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's allegations in paragraphs 8 9 was proper under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, as the allegations are disputed facts.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(c) IS DENIED.