Opinion
Civil No. 2002-63, Civil No. 2002-134.
January 25, 2008
Attorneys:, A. Jeffery Weiss, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For the Plaintiff,.
Kevin F. D'Amour, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For the Defendant..
ORDER
Before the Court is Sydney Stern's ("Stern") motion for sanctions against Edward Seykota ("Seykota") pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is opposed by Seykota.
I. FACTS
The facts of this case have been summarized in this Court's amended memorandum opinion dated December 14, 2007. As such, only the procedural posture leading to this motion will be discussed.
Stern obtained a judgment in the amount of $2,750,000 after a jury trial in this case. Thereafter, Stern sought to execute on the judgment. A series of documents were filed by both parties in reference to this attempt to execute. Stern takes issue with a document entitled "Reply to Stern's Opposition to Seykota's Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and Set Aside Recording of Judgment" ("Reply"). In a footnote in the Reply, Seykota alluded to an argument that Stern chose not to execute on a note held by Bruce Tizes ("Tizes") based on an agreement for favorable testimony from Tizes.
Stern then filed the instant motion for sanctions under Rule 11. Stern moved for sanctions on the ground that Seykota's Reply contained a "frivolous and completely unfounded allegation." (Mot. for Rule 11 Sanctions, 1.) Stern argues that Seykota accused her and her counsel of suborning perjury and accused Tizes of committing perjury by falsely testifying at trial.
Stern filed a notice of filing a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. The motion for sanctions and the memorandum of law in support of the motion were attached to the notice as exhibit 1.
Stern specifically states:
Herein, Seykota has falsely accused Ms. Stern, her counsel, and Dr. Tizes of criminal acts, contending that Ms. Stern and her counsel have suborned and committed perjury, and that Dr. Tizes has committed perjury, by giving favorable false testimony on her behalf at the trial.
(Mem. of Law in Supp. of Stern's Mot. for Sanctions Under Rule 11, 4.)
Stern seeks sanctions against Seykota and opposing counsel in the form of: 1) striking Seykota's reply, 2) an order directing Seykota and opposing counsel to submit a written apology, 3) an order directing Seykota and opposing counsel to pay $2,500, and 4) an order directing Seykota to pay Stern's reasonable attorneys fees and costs in filing her motion.
II. DISCUSSION
Rule 11 requires that "the factual contentions [in a written motion or other paper] have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery[.]" Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3). "Rule 11 . . . is intended to discourage pleadings that are `frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation. . . .'" Lieb v. Topstone Indus., Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 157 (3d Cir. 1986) (quoting Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 831 (9th Cir. 1986)).
The Court's inquiry under a Rule 11 motion is one of objective reasonableness. See Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co., 935 F.2d 604, 616 (3d Cir. 1991) (noting that the test for Rule 11 "is now an objective one of reasonableness").
III. ANALYSIS
Stern argues that Seykota and opposing counsel should be sanctioned for making the allegation that Tizes agreed to provide her with "favorable false testimony." Stern further argues that this footnote accused her, her counsel, and Tizes of criminal misconduct, specifically perjury and suborning perjury. Stern's argument overstates and misstates Seykota's footnote. Indeed, the footnote at issue states that it is arguable that there was an agreement where Tizes would provide favorable testimony in exchange for Stern's promise to not execute on the note. Nothing in this footnote leads the Court to conclude that Seykota frivolously alleged criminal misconduct, perjury, suborning perjury, or false testimony.
The footnote states in relevant part:
This Court should certainly find this curious. Seykota can certainly argue that Stern has chosen not to pursue the proceeds from the Note based on some agreement for favorable testimony from Tizes. As the Court will recall, Bruce Tizes is a client of Stern's counsel and a former litigant in this case. It is more likely than not that neither Stern nor her counsel have informed the marshal of the debt owed to Seykota by Tizes, even though it is property that may be executed on within the Virgin Islands.
(Reply, 3, n. 1.)
Stern has failed to show that Seykota and opposing counsel engaged in conduct that should be sanctioned. Sanctions should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances. Dura Systems, Inc. v. Rothbury Investments, Ltd., 886 F.2d 551, 556 (3d Cir. 1989) (noting that sanctions should only be imposed in the exceptional circumstance where a claim or motion is patently unmeritorious or frivolous). There are no such exceptional circumstances present in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is herebyORDERED that Stern's motion for sanctions under Rule 11 is DENIED.