Opinion
Civil Action 22-2107-KHV
06-09-2023
JAMES R. LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. DADSON MANUFACTURING CORP., et. al, Defendants.
ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James R. Lucas filed suit against Dadson Manufacturing Corporation (“Dadson”) and Peter B. Lucas, alleging breach of contract and fraud. On February 15, 2023, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. See Memorandum And Order (Doc. #46). Defendants subsequently asked the Court to sanction plaintiff under its inherent authority and argued that the present action was clearly baseless and that plaintiff has threatened future litigation on issues already decided by multiple courts. See Defendants' Motion Sanctions To Be Assessed As Costs (Doc. #53) filed March 22, 2023. On May 12, 2023, to determine whether plaintiff had acted in bad faith and whether the Court should therefore sanction him under its inherent authority, the Court sustained Defendants' Motion For Oral Argument (Doc. #54) filed March 24, 2023.
On Monday June 5, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and has come to the various conclusions, which incorporates the Court's statements from the hearing. By agreement of the parties, the Court orders that plaintiff shall not file any new action against Dadson, Nancy Peterson, the Nancy Peterson Trust, Peter Lucas, Pam Lucas or Mark Bodine that in any way relates to the Johnson County lawsuit, No. 17-cv-00853. In exchange, defendants agree to withdraw their motion for sanctions. The Court retains jurisdiction over this case, however, and if plaintiff violates the letter or the spirit of this order, it will readdress the issue of sanctions.
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that plaintiff shall not commence any new legal proceedings against Dadson, Nancy Peterson, the Nancy Peterson Trust, Peter Lucas, Pam Lucas or Mark Bodine which in any way relates to the Johnson County lawsuit, No. 17-cv-00853, and in light of defendants' agreement to withdraw its motion, Defendants' Motion Sanctions To Be Assessed As Costs (Doc. #53) filed March 22, 2023 is hereby overruled as moot as to sanctions under the Court's inherent authority. The Court retains jurisdiction over the case to readdress the issue of sanctions if necessary.