Opinion
Case No. 2:09-CV-179.
December 16, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs, Sidney T. Lewis and Yvonne D. Lewis Motion to Vacate and for Supplemental Leave to File (Doc. 54). In an Order, dated June 5, 2009, this Court found Mr. and Mrs. Lewis to be vexatious litigators and prohibited Mr. and Mrs. Lewis from filing any action without first submitting a certification from an attorney that their claims are warranted. (Doc. 45, Order p. 4.) In that Order, this Court also warned Mr. and Mrs. Lewis of the potential for Rule 11 sanctions, should they continue to file frivolous litigation.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) provides, in pertinent part, that:
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, —
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
Rule 11 applies to attorneys and to parties proceeding pro se. See Danvers v. Danvers, 959 F.2d 601, 605 (6th Cir. 1992). The Court may impose sanctions if it determines that subdivision (b) has been violated. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c). Sanctions are discretionary, and the court is to impose only such sanctions as are "sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2). The rule is designed to stem the flow of vexatious or patently meritless litigation into federal courts.
In ruling on a Rule 11 motion, the Court is not required to make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, but should set forth, at least in narrative form, the basis of the court's conclusion that sanctions are or are not warranted. See Mann v. G G Manufacturing, Inc., 900 F.2d 953, 959 (6th Cir. 1990). In reaching its conclusion on this issue, the court must avoid the use of hindsight, and evaluate whether the challenged position was reasonable at the time the complaint was filed. See id. at 958
Attached to the Motion to Vacate and for Supplemental Leave to File is a new Complaint listing the North American Specialty Insurance Company, as well as other entities and persons, as Defendants. (See Doc. 54, Pl. Mot. p. 12-15.) Also attached to the Motion is a letter from a law firm sent to Vacy Webb ("Webb"), notifying Webb of a potential entitlement to benefits in a class action settlement. (Doc. 54, Pl. Mot. p. 9.) Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, however, fail to provide with their Motion a written certification from an attorney that the claims contained in their attached Complaint are warranted.
The letter specifies, in pertinent part: "Please do not submit your claim to the court." (Doc. 54, Pl. Mot. p. 9.) (emphasis in original).
Mr. and Mrs. Lewis's Motion is hereby DENIED. This Court's Order of June 5, 2009, barring Mr. and Mrs. Lewis from filing any action in this Court without first submitting an attorney certification remains in place.