Reyes v. Professional Hepa Certificate Corp.
86 F. Supp. 3d 79
D.P.R.2015Background
- Parties had a four-month discovery period (extended 15 days); defendant moved for summary judgment after discovery.
- Defendant supported its motion with deposition testimony, supervisory statements, personnel records, emails, and medical records.
- Plaintiff opposed largely with a post-summary-judgment affidavit that had not been produced in discovery.
- The court struck that post-summary affidavit under the “sham affidavit” doctrine and granted defendant summary judgment (plaintiff failed to meet ADA 15-employee requirement).
- The court ordered the parties to show cause why sanctions should or should not be imposed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
- Plaintiff offered no substantive defense to sanctions; the court found counsel Escanellas had repeatedly filed post-summary affidavits despite prior warnings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-summary affidavit was improper (sham/untimely) | Affidavit was not a sham; court erred and abused discretion | Affidavit was a post-discovery attempt to introduce new facts and should be struck | Court struck the affidavit as a sham and granted summary judgment to defendant |
| Whether counsel violated Rule 11(b) by filing/using the affidavit | Counsel did not address Rule 11 or rebut specific misconduct allegations | Escanellas acted without reasonable inquiry and disregarded precedent and court orders | Court found a Rule 11(b) violation and imposed $500 sanction on counsel |
| Whether sanctions are appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (vexatious multiplication) | No meaningful rebuttal from plaintiff/counsel presented | Defendant argued counsel’s repeated post-summary filings multiplied proceedings vexatiously | Court found counsel’s conduct vexatious and imposed $500 under § 1927 |
| Whether plaintiff must pay defendant’s claimed costs | Plaintiff did not contest the submitted costs | Defendant submitted itemized costs of $3,861.65 | Court ordered plaintiff to pay $3,861.65 in costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Mariani v. Doctors Associates, Inc., 983 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1993) (Rule 11 standards for attorney inquiry and reasonableness)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (purpose of Rule 11 to deter baseless filings)
- Cruz v. Savage, 896 F.2d 626 (1st Cir. 1990) (Rule 11 and § 1927 discussion on vexatious conduct and sanctions)
- Navarro-Ayala v. Núñez, 968 F.2d 1421 (1st Cir. 1992) (Rule 11 sanctions serve deterrence and compensation)
- Morales v. AC Orssleffs EFTF, 246 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2001) (post-discovery affidavits disallowed absent satisfactory explanation)