General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley et al

Filing 321

ORDER. Plaintiff's [Oral] Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence and Discovery Abuse is denied in part and denied as moot in part. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 7/5/12. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01398-PAB-KLM
GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, d/b/a GENERAL STEEL CORPORATION,
a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETHAN DANIEL CHUMLEY, individually, and
ATLANTIC BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a ARMSTRONG
STEEL CORPORATION,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s [Oral] Motion for Sanctions Due to
Spoliation of Evidence and Discovery Abuse [see Docket No. 165; Filed March 30,
2012] (the “Motion”). The Court held a hearing on the Motion on April 10, 2012 [#185], and
Defendants filed a Response to the Motion on April 17, 2012 [#202]. The Motion is thus
ripe for resolution.
In the Motion, Plaintiff avers that Defendants violated the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act “by their misleading the public and their customers in regard to virtually every
aspect of the sales process.” Motion [#165] at 2. In connection with that claim, Plaintiff
therefore sought production of pre- and post-contract communications between Defendants
and their customers. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff avers that Defendants engaged in spoliation of
such evidence and discovery abuse. Id. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the form
-1-

of entry of a default judgment against Defendants, dismissal with prejudice of Defendants’
counterclaims, entry of an injunction, and entry of a judgment for damages. Plaintiff also
seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. at 26.
The relief sought by Plaintiff is either precluded by the Court’s previous adjudication
of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ counterclaims on their merits, or unwarranted under
the circumstances. On April 26,2012, the District Judge entered summary judgment in
favor of Defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act. See Order [#233] at 1-2. The request for entry of default judgment,
injunctive relief, dismissal of counterclaims and damages has been mooted by the Court’s
summary judgment and other rulings. See Gen. Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co.,
Inc., No. CIV 10-1020 JB/LFG, 2012 WL 1684573, at *27-28 (D.N.M. May 12, 2012). The
request for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees is inappropriate here, where Plaintiff’s
underlying claim was unsuccessful and resulted in no monetary award. See Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440 (1983) (stating that a court “should award only that amount
of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s oral Motion is DENIED in part and DENIED
as moot in part.
DATED: July 5, 2012

-2-