Opinion
Civil No. 01-71466
January 10, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 26, 1996, Plaintiff was fired from his employment at Kith Haven Nursing Home, owned and operated by Defendants Thomas Ostrander and McLaren Health Care, Inc. Since that time, Plaintiff, acting pro se, has initiated three lawsuits arising out the same sequence of events surrounding his termination. In each case, summary judgment motions were granted in favor of the defendants. See Anderson v. Holmes, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8055 at *1 (E.D.Mich. 1998) (No. 97-CV-73085), Anderson v. Holmes, Case No. 99-CV-73454, Anderson v. Ostrander, Case No. 01-CV-71466. Plaintiff has not appealed any of these rulings.
Before me is Defendants' motion for sanctions, for attorneys fees and costs.
I. Discussion
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c), it is within the power of the district court to impose sanctions on its own initiative. The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant Rule 11 sanctions. See Cooter Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359(1990),Orlett v. Cincinnati Microwave, Inc., 954 F.2d 414, 419 (6th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted) ("[I]n deciding the nature and extent of sanctions to impose, the district court is given wide discretion.").
Sanctions may be awarded under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to a party whose opponent's suit is meritless, frivolous, or "brought in bad faith to harass rather than to win." 29 U.S.C. § 185(2001), Chrysler Motors Corp. v. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of Am., 959 F.2d 685, 689 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom Chrysler Corp. v. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers, 506 U.S. 908, 113 S.Ct. 304, 121 L.Ed.2d 227(1992), Perichak v. Int'l Union of Elec. Radio and Machine Workers, 715 F.2d 78, 80 (3rd Cir. 1983) (noting award of fees may also be appropriate when non-moving party has acted in bad faith under § 301).
The provisions of Federal Rule 11(c) were not followed in this case by Defendants' attorney in seeking sanctions. A letter sent to both parties on November 16, 2001, explained the "safe harbor" provision of Rule 11(c)(1)(A) which outlines a two-step process for parties seeking sanctions: "first, serve the Rule 11 motion on the opposing party for a designated period (at least 21 days); and then file a motion with the court." Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 294 (6th Cir. 1997). "A party must now serve a Rule 11 motion on the allegedly offending party at least twenty-one days prior to the conclusion of the case or judicial rejection of the offending contention." Id. at 295. This procedure was not followed in this case. The Defendants now ask the court to exercise its discretion in granting sanctions.
While Plaintiff's conduct may be said to be unreasonable and that he may have instituted at least the third lawsuit with the intention to harass the Defendants, under the circumstances of this case, I decline at this time to exercise my discretion to award sanctions. Should Plaintiff persist in this conduct, I will revisit the matter.
II. Conclusion
Defendant's motion is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.