Opinion
Civil Action 20-5617
02-17-2022
MICHAEL WIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.
AND NOW, this 17th day of February 2022, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7), Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 11), Defendant's Reply Brief (Doc. No. 13-1), and Plaintiff's Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 17), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 12), Defendant's Response (Doc. No. 15), and Plaintiff's Reply (Doc. No. 19), the Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to serve Plaintiff with its motion to dismiss and then fraudulently submitted a Certificate of Service in which they certified that they had served Plaintiff. Moreover, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has filed a frivolous motion to dismiss. Defendant responds that it did serve Plaintiff with a copy of the motion.Without resolving the factual dispute between the parties, I note that Plaintiff has, in fact, received a copy of the Motion to Dismiss. As Plaintiff was able to file a response and sur-reply brief, both of which I have fully considered, Plaintiff has suffered no prejudice. Accordingly, I will not award sanctions. See Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec Tool. Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1995) (noting that a key consideration in determining whether sanctions are appropriate is “the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party”). Moreover, as set forth in detail in my accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I do not find Defendant's Motion to be frivolous.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.