Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-11562-RWZ.
September 19, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Gerald N. Pellegrini ("Pellegrini") filed suit against Analog Devices, Inc. ("Analog") in August 2002, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,651,069. In September 2003, this court granted Analog's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that dismissal was required under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). Pellegrini repeatedly represented both to defendant and to the court that he would voluntarily dismiss his remaining claims were he to lose on this portion of the case. Final judgment was entered in September 2003, and the remaining claims were stayed pending appeal. In July 2004, the Federal Circuit affirmed. See Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc., 375 F.3d 1113, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Plaintiff then returned to this court seeking leave to amend his complaint to assert additional claims. At a status conference in January 2005, this court ordered plaintiff to "provide evidentiary support underlying the good faith basis for his remaining allegations of patent infringement." In response to plaintiff's inadequate filings, Analog filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3).
On January 11, 2006, this court granted defendant's motion for sanctions and dismissed the remainder of plaintiff's claims. The court directed defendant to submit a bill of its fees and costs accrued since January 2005, from which an appropriate award would be determined. On February 3, 2006, defendant requested $217,503.14 in attorney's fees and costs. In his opposition papers filed on February 16, 2006, plaintiff, who appeared pro se in this matter, argued that the amount requested is both unreasonable and is "orders of magnitude beyond that amount which Plaintiff can afford."
It is well-established that courts may consider a party's ability to pay sanctions imposed under Rule 11. See Silva v. Witschen, 19 F.3d 725, 733 n. 15 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting that courts may take an attorney's financial status into account when determining the amount of sanctions to be imposed under Rule 11, but declining to reduce the sanction imposed where attorney failed to present any evidence of financial insolvency); see also Coats v. Pierre, 890 F.2d 728, 734 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming imposition of Rule 11 sanctions on pro se plaintiff, but remanding with instructions to reduce amount of sanctions imposed in light of the plaintiff's "economic circumstances").
Accordingly, plaintiff shall submit an affidavit and other documentation describing his net worth, current salary, other sources of income, and any other financial information he wishes the court to consider regarding his ability to pay attorney's fees and costs within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Defendant may respond within fourteen (14) days thereafter. The court reserves judgment on the reasonableness of the fees and costs sought until such papers are filed.
Defendants have noted that Pellegrini testified in his deposition that his business partner, Barry Herring, has agreed to pay 40% of Pellegrini's legal fees. See Def's. Reply in Further Support of Its Application for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 3, Ex. A. However, the court has no information regarding, nor evidence from which to conclude, that this agreement would include sanctions imposed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.