Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al

Filing 237

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions Rule 11 filed by Defendants David Guetta, Frederick Riesterer, Shapiro Bernstein and Co. Motion set for hearing on 4/16/2012 at 10:00 AM before Judge Josephine Staton Tucker. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit of Service)(Miller, Donald)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11 BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14 WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.; STACY
FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and
15 JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and
collectively as the music group The
16 Black Eyed Peas, et al.,
17

Defendants.

18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SACV 10-1656 JST(RZx)
Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker
Courtroom 10A
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS SHAPIRO
BERNSTEIN & CO., INC.,
FREDERIC RIESTERER AND
DAVID GUETTA’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF
AND HIS COUNSEL PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NY1003802.1
217131-10001

PROPOSED ORDER

1

Having considered the Motion by Defendants Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., Inc.,

2 Frederic Riesterer and David Guetta (together “Defendants”) for Sanctions Against
3 Plaintiff and His Counsel Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, along with the supporting
4 Memorandum of Law and supporting Declaration of Tal E. Dickstein with exhibits
5 thereto, any opposition by Plaintiff and any reply by Defendants, as well as
6 counsel’s argument at a hearing held on April 16, 2012, the Court finds that
7 Plaintiff, Bryan Pringle, and his counsel have presented to the Court pleadings,
8 written motions or other papers that were not presented for a proper purpose, assert
9 claims or other legal contentions that are not warranted by existing law or by a
10 nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for
11 establishing new law, and assert factual contentions that lack evidentiary support
12 and were shown to lack evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
13 further investigation and discovery, and therefore violate Rule 11 of the Federal
14 Rules of Civil Procedure.
15
Having further found that all of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and expenses
16 were incurred as a direct result of Plaintiff’s and his counsel’s violations of Rule 11,
17 the Court hereby orders that Plaintiff, Bryan Pringle, and his counsel—Dean A.
18 Dickie and Kathleen E. Koppenhoefer, individually as well as jointly and severally
19 with Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C.; Ira P. Gould and Ryan L. Greely,
20 individually as well as jointly and severally with Gould Law Group; and George L.
21 Hampton IV and Colin C. Holley, individually as well as jointly and severally with
22 HamptonHolley LLP—shall pay to Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
23 expenses incurred in this action.
24

Defendants’ Motion is therefore GRANTED.

25

Defendants shall, within thirty (30) days hereof, submit billing records and/or

26 other documentation setting forth their attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably
27 incurred in this action.
28
NY1003802.1
217131-10001

PROPOSED ORDER

1

1
2
3 Dated: April __, 2012
Santa Ana, California
4
5
____________________________
Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker
U.S.D.J.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NY1003802.1
217131-10001

PROPOSED ORDER

2