Opinion
Civil No. 2003-132.
February 5, 2008
Steven Malpere, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., Pro Se Plaintiff.
David Staples, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., Pro Se Plaintiff.Marja Staples, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., Pro Se Plaintiff.
J. Daryl Dodson, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For the Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the motion of pro se plaintiffs, David H. Staples and Marja Staples ("the Staples") to vacate any judgments entered in this case and to impose sanctions on opposing counsel.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Staples and Steven J. Malpere sued Ruyter Bay Land Partners, LLC, Mikael Van Loon, Stephen Stranahan, Charles Salisbury, Grant Hathaway, and Frank Murray ("Defendants") for payment of various fees and foreclosure of liens on properties owned by the Defendants and Nature Conservancy, Inc. Defendants filed a counterclaim requesting a declaratory judgment that no fees were owed on the properties, and alleging intentional harm to property. This Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims asserted by the Plaintiffs. The Court also granted the Defendants partial summary judgment on their counterclaim for declaratory judgment.
The Plaintiffs moved to have the Court reconsider its summary judgment. That motion was denied. Thereafter, the Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs. That motion was granted in an order dated October 9, 2007. On December 27, 2007, the Staples filed the instant motion to vacate any judgments entered in this matter, and for sanctions against opposing counsel.
In their motion, the Staples argue that they did not receive the October 9, 2007, order until December 5, 2007. The Staples also argue that opposing counsel engaged in improper behavior and should be sanctioned.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard on motion for reconsideration
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.4, which provides:
A party may file a motion asking a judge or magistrate judge to reconsider an order or decision made by that judge or magistrate judge. Such motion shall be filed within ten (10) days after the entry of the order or decision unless the time is extended by the court. . . . A motion to reconsider shall be based on: (1) intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used as "a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT T of the V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004).
B. Standard on motion for sanctions
Under Rule 11, a motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Moreover, a motion for Rule 11 sanctions must be made prior to the entry of final judgment. See Simmerman v. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 63 (3d Cir. 1994) (noting that motions for sanctions must be made before entry of final judgment); Mellon Bank Corp. v. First Union Real Estate, 951 F.2d 1399, 1413 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting that a request for Rule 11 sanctions after entry of final judgment is untimely).
III. ANALYSIS
The Staples' motion for reconsideration is untimely. Pursuant to LRCi 7.4, the Staples had ten days from October 9, 2007, not including holidays and weekends, to file for reconsideration, bringing the deadline to October 23, 2007. The Staples argue that they did not receive a copy of the October 9, 2007, Order until December 5, 2007, when opposing counsel faxed them a copy. Notwithstanding this argument, the Staples filed the instant motion on December 27, 2007, more than ten days after receiving the copy of the Order. The Staples have not filed a motion for an extension of time to file. See LRCi 7.4 (providing for an extension of time within which to file a motion for reconsideration for good cause shown).
Similarly, the Staples' motion for sanctions is also out of time. The Staples argue that opposing counsel engaged in fraudulent and unethical conduct throughout the pendency of this case. Their motion improperly seeks to obtain sanctions more than a year after the final judgment in this case. Such a motion is procedurally defective and must be denied. See Mellon, 951 F.2d at 1413. As such, the motion for sanctions must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Staples' motion to vacate is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Staple's motion for sanctions against opposing counsel is DENIED.