1:18-cv-00303
D. Colo.Mar 29, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Delmart Vreeland sought leave to amend his complaint to add three Colorado Attorney General attorneys as defendants for alleged misconduct.
- Defendant’s counsel William Allen responded that adding those attorneys could disqualify current counsel and force the State to reallocate resources, stating four AG attorneys were involved.
- Vreeland filed a motion to sanction Allen under Rule 11, alleging Allen knowingly lied because some attorneys had left the AG office before the filing.
- Vreeland sought multiple sanctions (striking the response, granting the amendment, referral to regulator, fees, costs).
- The court construed the filing as a Rule 11 motion, noted Vreeland failed to follow Rule 11’s safe-harbor/service requirements (a procedural basis to deny), but addressed the merits anyway.
- The magistrate judge concluded Allen’s statement was inexact but not materially false or prejudicial; Rule 11 sanctions were unwarranted and the motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allen made a false, sanctionable statement to the court under Rule 11 | Allen knowingly lied about four AG attorneys being employed to justify opposing the amendment | Any misstatement was inadvertent; two attorneys named were employed and the underlying contention (disqualification/resource burden) was fact-based | Allen’s statement was inexact but not materially false or sanctionable; no Rule 11 violation found |
| Whether the motion complied with Rule 11 procedural requirements (safe-harbor/service) | Vreeland’s motion sought Rule 11 sanctions but did not follow the pre-filing safe-harbor and service rules | N/A — court identified the procedural defect as grounds to deny | The court noted the procedural failure (basis to deny) but ruled on the merits anyway and denied sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668 (10th Cir. 1988) (Rule 11 imposes an objective reasonableness standard)
- Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 1997) (Rule 11 inquiry asks whether counsel’s conduct was reasonable)
- Scott v. Boeing Co., 204 F.R.D. 698 (D. Kan. 2002) (subjective good faith does not satisfy Rule 11’s objective standard)
- Young v. Corbin, 889 F. Supp. 582 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (counsel may be sanctioned for advocating a false position or persisting after it loses support)
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 (1991) (Rule 11 aims to curb abuses of the litigation process)
- Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (factors to consider before imposing dispositive sanctions)
- Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd., 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo. 1996) (Ehrenhaus factors apply even when sanctions are not dispositive)
- Tidik v. Ritsema, 938 F. Supp. 416 (E.D. Mich. 1996) (Rule 11 is not a fee-shifting mechanism)
- Watson v. City of Salem, 934 F. Supp. 666 (D.N.J. 1996) (Rule 11 is not intended to reward litigants victimized by litigation)
- Wartsila NSD North Am., Inc. v. Hill International, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D.N.J. 2004) (Rule 11 sanctions reserved for exceptional circumstances)