Melendez v. University of New Hampshire, 1:23-cv-00172

Michael Melendez, a pro se litigant and former UNH law student, sued UNH and others alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and constitutional violations after his disenrollment.
Throughout 2023-2024, Melendez filed several amended complaints, progressively increasing defendants and claims, culminating in a Fourth Amended Complaint.
Melendez moved to supplement his complaint with claims related to alleged unauthorized access and deletion of his UNH email; defendants argued the claims were meritless and warned of potential sanctions.
Both Melendez and defendants eventually filed competing Rule 11 motions for sanctions, each claiming the other’s filings were frivolous and improper.
The core dispute revolved around whether either party’s sanction requests or supplemental pleadings were factually unsupported or procedurally improper.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether defendants’ mention of sanctions in their April 1, 2024 opposition was an improper Rule 11 motion warranting sanctions against defense counsel	Defendants’ Opp. conclusion amounted to improper motion for sanctions	Only a passing reference; intent to file a proper, separate Rule 11 motion	No violation; not a formal Rule 11 motion
Whether Melendez’s Motion to Supplement was frivolous and sanctionable under Rule 11	Claims were supported by fact and law	Motion was frivolous, not in good faith, and burdensome	No sanctions; motion lacked support but circumstances did not warrant sanctions
Whether defendants complied with Rule 11’s "safe harbor" notice requirements	Defendants filed their motion one day too soon (on the 21st day); failed safe harbor	Served motion 21 days in advance, substantially complied	Substantial compliance; unnecessary to reach, as sanctions denied on merits
Whether defense counsel’s factual investigation before discovery was improper	Opposed use of “unauthorized discovery” evidence in opposition filing	Only informal investigation, not formal discovery; permissible	No impropriety; informal investigation allowed under FRCP

CQ Int’l Co., Inc. v. Rochem Int’l, Inc., USA, 659 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2011) (Rule 11 permits sanctions for frivolous, unfounded, or improper filings)
In re Ames, 993 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2021) (Standard for frivolous claims under Rule 11)
Ryan v. Clemente, 901 F.2d 177 (1st Cir. 1990) (Sanctions can be upheld when party proceeds despite contrary evidence)
Triantos v. Guaetta & Benson, LLC, 91 F.4th 556 (1st Cir. 2024) (Strict enforcement of the Rule 11 safe harbor provision),
Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421 (1st Cir. 1992) (Objective reasonableness standard for Rule 11 conduct)