Summary
evaluating Rule 11 motion on the merits despite lack of opposition
Summary of this case from Rates Tech. Inc. v. Broadvox Holding Co.Opinion
No. 10 Civ. 8661 (CM) (HBP)
10-18-2011
ISSAC STENGEL, Plaintiff, v. BRADFORD BLACK, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
I. BACKGROUND
This is the fifth action that plaintiff Isaac Stengel ("Stengel") has initiated against defendant Bradford Black ("Dr. Black") with regard to a diamond that Dr. Black purchased in 2001. The background of all five actions was previously laid out in the Decision and Order of this Court dismissing Stengel's Complaint in this action. (ECF Dkt. No. 22.) Briefly, Stengel first commenced an action in this Court in January 2003, which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Stengel was given leave to replead, but his Amended Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Stengel v. Black, 2004 WL 1933612 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2004). Stengel next attempted a law suit in the New York Supreme Court; that suit was also dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division. Stengel v. Black, 813 N.Y.S.2d 428 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006).
Stengel then filed a complaint in Ohio state court. The Ohio court granted summary judgment for Dr. Black, and the judgment was affirmed. Stengel v. Black, 2007 WL 1139836 (Oh. App. Apr. 16, 2007). The Ohio Supreme Court denied certiorari.
In January 2008, notwithstanding all his previous (failed) litigation, Stengel again filed a Complaint against Dr. Black in this Court. The Complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and also because it was barred by res judicata and the applicable statute of limitations. The Second Circuit affirmed that judgment. Stengel v. Black, 368 Fed. App'x 164 (2d Cir. 2010).
The latest stage in Stengel's litany of lawsuits was commenced in this Court in November 2010. (ECF Dkt. No. 1.) On February 24, 2011, this Court dismissed Stengel's Complaint in its entirety, for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, on res judicata grounds, and for being barred by the applicable statute of limitations. This Court also issued an injunction, requiring Stengel to obtain leave from this Court before filing any additional complaints against Dr. Black with regard to the diamond sale.
Following this Court's decision dismissing Stengel's action, Dr. Black obtained leave to file a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. (ECF Dkt. No. 29.) Stengel has not opposed the motion.
For all of the following reasons, Dr. Black's motion for sanctions is GRANTED and the case is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for inquest.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) provides:
Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies 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, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely 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 belief or a lack of information.
Rule 11(c)(1) provides that, once a court has determined that Rule 11(b) has been violated, "the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any...party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation." Although some hesitation in imposing sanctions against a party proceeding pro se is warranted, "pro se filings do not serve as an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets." Durant v. Traditional Investments, Ltd., 135 F.R.D. 42, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (citations omitted).
Here, Stengel should have been well aware of the status of his claims against Dr. Black, if not after the first and second court decisions rendered, then certainly after the third and fourth. Multiple judges in multiple courts, both trial and appellate, have affirmed the deficiencies (both regarding the merits and jurisdiction) of Stengel's complaints. This Court was no exception, and Stengel has once more appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Dkt. No. 24.) Stengel's attempt to again circumvent the decisions of not only this Court, but also of the Second Circuit, the New York State Supreme Court, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, the Ohio Court of Appeals, and the Ohio Supreme Court is patently frivolous, and violates (at least) Rule 11(b)(1) and (2).
Dr. Black has now been forced to defend five lawsuits, all based on the same set of operative facts. He will still be required to defend himself in front of the Second Circuit with regard to Stengel's pending appeal. Dr. Black is entitled to receive his attorney's fees incurred as a result of needing to defend the present lawsuit. See, e.g., Paganucci v. City of New York, 993 F.2d 310, 313 (2d Cir. 1993) (affirming award of attorney's fees as sanctions as to the issue of res judicata).
This Court has already issued an injunction requiring Stengel to seek leave before filing any additional complaints with regard to the sale at issue, and has dismissed his complaint with prejudice, so the requests for those actions in the present motion are moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Dr. Black's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Stengel is GRANTED and the case is hereby REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for inquest.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the instant motion (ECF Dkt. No. 30) from the Court's list of pending motions. Dated: October 18, 2011
/s/_________
U.S.D.J.