Beitman v. Correct Clear Solutions et al

Filing 228

ORDER denying 206 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. See the attached order for additional information. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 1/25/2022. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lee Michael Beitman,

10

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-08229-PCT-JAT

S. Herrick, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Lee Michael Beitman’s Motion for Rule 11(b)
Sanctions (Doc. 206).

17

On October 1, 2021, Defendant Betty Hahn filed a motion for extension of time to

18

file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of her prior motion for summary

19

judgment. (Doc. 199). On October 14, 2021, Defendant Hahn filed a motion for

20

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 203). In

21

both documents, Defendant Hahn’s counsel signed the document but failed to sign the

22

mailing certificate appended to the last page of the filing. (Doc. 199 at 2–3; Doc. 203 at 6–

23

7). This is Plaintiff’s first motion for sanctions against Defendant Hahn’s counsel.

24

Plaintiff moves the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant Hahn’s counsel for her

25

alleged intentional failure to provide mail service of court documents Doc. 199 and Doc.

26

203 to Plaintiff as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d). (Doc. 206 at 1). As

27

proof that Defendant Hahn’s counsel’s conduct was intentional, Plaintiff asserts that

28

Defendant Hahn’s counsel failed to remedy the lack of service even after Plaintiff stated

1

“[t]he Plaintiff never received (Doc. 199) from the defense counsel. This was a violation

2

of Rule 5(d) Fed. R. Civ. P. and the denial of the ability to respond to the motion before

3

the Court made its ruling” in Plaintiff’s Objection to Ruling by Magistrate Judge. (Doc.

4

202 at 2).

5

Defendant Hahn’s counsel asserts that her failure to properly serve Plaintiff by mail

6

was inadvertent and went undiscovered until Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, so sanctions

7

are not warranted in this instance. (Doc. 210 at 2). According to Defendant Hahn’s counsel,

8

because Doc. 202 was addressed to the Court and did not otherwise warrant a response

9

from Defendant, Defendant Hahn’s counsel did not believe a response was necessary nor

10

did Defendant Hahn’s counsel realize that Plaintiff was alleging that she failed to properly

11

mail the documents to Plaintiff. (Doc. 210 at 2). Defendant Hahn’s counsel further certifies

12

that “[m]oving forward, undersigned counsel will do her best to ensure copies of all court

13

filings will be mailed to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.” (Doc. 201 at 3).

14

Sanctions are justified under Rule 11 “when a filing is frivolous, legally

15

unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or brought for an improper purpose.” Estate

16

of Blue v. Cnty. of L.A., 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997). A filing is frivolous if it is “both

17

baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry.” Townsend v. Holman

18

Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990). The purpose of Rule 11 is to

19

promote judicial economy by deterring baseless filings, thereby “streamlin[ing] the

20

administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496

21

U.S. 384, 393 (1990). Outside of Rule 11, “a district court has the inherent power to impose

22

sanctions on counsel who ‘willfully abuse[s] judicial processes.’” U.S. v. Blodgett, 709

23

F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766

24

(1980)). Such a sanction must be supported by “something more” than a finding of

25

recklessness; inherent power sanctions also require an attorney to act with an improper

26

purpose or in bad faith. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001).

27

Here, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Hahn’s filing was frivolous,

28

unreasonable, or otherwise filed for an improper purpose, so the Court disagrees that Rule

-2-

1

11 sanctions would be appropriate here. Instead, Plaintiff appears to argue that sanctions

2

are warranted because Defendant Hahn’s counsel intentionally failed to serve documents

3

on Plaintiff in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4

The Court is not convinced that sanctions are warranted here under the Court’s

5

general authority to impose sanctions. While Plaintiff has shown that Defendant Hahn’s

6

counsel has violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) by failing to properly serve two

7

of her filings on Plaintiff and certify that she did so, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant

8

Hahn’s counsel acted in bad faith or that her actions were otherwise for an improper

9

purpose. In the absence of other evidence, the Court is satisfied with Defendant Hahn’s

10

counsel’s explanation that her failure to serve the documents on Plaintiff was an

11

undiscovered mistake. Silaev v. Swiss-America Trading Corporation, No. CV-14-02551-

12

PHX-JAT, 2017 WL 394342, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 30, 2017) (“Although this Court does not

13

condone Counsel’s conduct, it is not convinced that it is appropriate here to exercise its

14

inherent power to impose sanctions as a result of that conduct.”) However, the Court

15

cautions Defendant Hahn’s counsel that inadvertence to serve documents on Plaintiff

16

“when repeated, reflects contempt for the law, the Court, and [Plaintiff]” and, if repeated,

17

will be viewed as Defendant Hahn’s disregard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, our

18

Local Rules, and this Order, at which point sanctions may be appropriate. See In re Volpert,

19

177 B.R. 81, 92 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995); see also De Foe v. Sprint/United Management

20

Co., 196 F.R.D. 392, 393 (D. Kansas 2000).

21

Finally, Plaintiff also asks the Court to require the Arizona Department of

22

Corrections (ADC) to institute the Prisoner Electronic Filing Program at the facility in

23

which Plaintiff is currently housed. However, the Court lacks the authority to require ADC

24

to unilaterally expand the Prisoner Electronic Filing Program outside the bounds of General

25

Order 14-17. Because Plaintiff is not currently incarcerated at a facility that participates in

26

the Prisoner Electronic Filing Program pursuant to General Order 14-17, his motion for an

27

order requiring ADC to “to start the E-file program at the South Unit facility like the other

28

facilities” is denied.

-3-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED in its

3
4

entirety. (Doc. 206).
Dated this 25th day of January, 2022.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-