224 N.C. App. 18
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Shannon Fatta sued M & M Properties Management, Inc. for retaliation, discrimination, and wrongful termination claims.
- On March 10, 2011, the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, dismissing all claims with prejudice.
- Plaintiff sought Rule 59(e) relief, then appealed; this Court affirmed the summary judgment in Fatta I (2012).
- Plaintiff later sought sanctions under Rules 11, 26(g), and 37(d) and a relief-from-judgment motion after summary judgment.
- The trial court held a hearing (Oct. 14, 2011), made extensive findings, and granted defendant’s motion to strike and for sanctions, including a gatekeeping provision limiting plaintiff’s filings.
- The Jan. 4, 2012 orders awarded defendant fees and costs and imposed gatekeeping; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly granted strike and sanctions under Rule 12/Rule 11. | Fatta argues defendant’s motions were improper under Rule 7(b)(1). | Defendant contends motions were properly framed, specific, and grounded in Rule 11 and Rule 12. | Yes; the court did not err in granting strike and sanctions. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were properly imposed. | Fatta asserts lack of improper purpose and insufficient evidence. | Defendant maintains findings support improper purpose and frivolous conduct. | Yes; sanctions for improper purpose were supported by findings. |
| Whether the gatekeeper provision constitutes an abuse of discretion. | Fatta claims the gatekeeper is overbroad and denied access to the courts. | Gatekeeper provision narrowly tailored to extraordinary circumstances. | Yes; the gatekeeper provision was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodd v. Steele, 114 N.C. App. 632 (1994) (Rule 11 de novo standard; three-part test for sanctions)
- Johns v. Johns, 195 N.C. App. 201 (2009) (improper purpose prong requires sufficient factual support for sanctions)
- Brown v. Hurley, 124 N.C. App. 377 (1996) (improper purpose prong; objective standard for sanctions)
- Lane v. Winn-Dixie Charlotte, Inc., 169 N.C. App. 180 (2005) (Rule 12/7; sufficient particulars for relief; grounds and relief stated)
- Cromer v. Kraft Foods North America, Inc., 390 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2004) (prefiling/injunction analysis; tailoring of gatekeeping)