Slip Opinion
D. Guam2024Background
- Dr. Sherif Philips, after losing his medical privileges in North Carolina following a malpractice suit, has filed numerous related lawsuits in both federal and state courts, most of which were dismissed.
- In North Carolina, Philips was ordered to pay significant attorneys' fees to Pitt County Memorial Hospital (PCMH); this judgment was later enforced in Guam.
- In this case, Philips sued Michael Berman and Daniel Berman, PCMH’s counsel in Guam, alleging due process violations, tort, fraud, and other claims.
- The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and also recommended sanctions against Philips under Rule 11.
- Philips objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (R&R), and filed motions for reconsideration and to strike the defendants' opposition briefs; all were denied by the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction (Federal) | Jurisdiction proper due to federal questions, notably due process violations under the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments | No federal question presented; defendants are private actors, not state/federal actors | No federal question; no federal jurisdiction |
| Subject matter jurisdiction (Diversity) | Diversity exists due to his alleged Florida domicile | Plaintiff is domiciled in Guam, not Florida | No diversity jurisdiction; Plaintiff domiciled in Guam |
| Failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)) | Complaint states claims of fraud, harassment, FDCPA violation | Allegations are conclusory, unsupported, and unclear | Complaint does not state a claim |
| Sanctions under Rule 11 | Claims are new and proper; sanctions undeserved | Case is frivolous, improper purpose, harassment, relitigation | Sanctions imposed for improper, frivolous filings |
| Leave to amend complaint | Not directly addressed | Amendment would be futile | Leave to amend denied as futile |
| Motions to strike/Opposition filings | Defendants' filings are meritless and malicious | Filings are proper and relevant | Motions to strike denied as meritless |
| Reconsideration (Rule 59) | Magistrate’s rulings were erroneous | No basis for reconsideration | Motion for reconsideration denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; plaintiff bears burden)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleadings must have factual content to state a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaints require more than conclusory statements)
- Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979 (conclusory allegations not sufficient to survive motion to dismiss)
- Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358 (Rule 11 sanctions imposed for filings for improper purpose or frivolity)