Nova Leasing, LLC v. Sun River Energy, Inc. et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 69 Motion for Sanctions and Plaintiffs request for sanctions is DENIED as moot, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/19/12.(bnbcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00689-CMA-BNB
NOVA LEASING, LLC,
SUN RIVER ENERGY, INC.,
MOUNTAIN SHARE TRANSFER, INC.,
HARRY N. MCMILLAN, an individual
CICERONE CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT, a Texas limited liability company, and
J.H. BRECH, LLC, a Texas limited liability company,
This matter arises on Defendant Sun River Energy, Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions and
Brief in Support [Doc. # 69, filed 09/22/2011] (the “Motion”). The Motion is DENIED without
Defendant Sun River Energy, Inc. (“Sun River”) moves for sanctions under Rule 11,
Fed.R.Civ.P.; 28 U.S.C. § 1927; and the court’s inherent power. Sun River asserts that it is
entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses it has “needlessly incurred because certain of
Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous, vexatious, brought in bad faith, for purposes of harassment and
with malice . . . .” Motion, pp. 1-2. Sun River further asserts that the plaintiff accuses Sun
River; Cicerone Corporate Development; and J.H. Brech, LLC, of attempting to artificially
inflate the price of Sun River’s stock, but “[t]hese allegations have no evidentiary support, and
are completely baseless and unfounded.”1 Id. at p. 2.
Rule 11 provides for sanctions on a determination that a pleading was filed for an
improper purpose, such as to harass, or that the pleading contains factual contentions that have
no evidentiary support. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) and (c). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the court may
award costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees against attorneys who multiply proceedings
vexatiously. In addition, the court has inherent power to “assess attorney's fees when a party has
acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
To determine whether Sun River’s arguments are meritorious, it would be necessary to
analyze the merits of the claims, including affidavits and documents submitted by the parties.
Any rulings on the Motion would have implications for subsequent summary judgment practice
The district court has discretion to delay ruling on a motion for sanctions to avoid
disruption of the progress of a lawsuit. The First Circuit has stated: “[c]ourts should, and often
do, defer consideration of certain kinds of sanctions motions until the end of trial to gain a full
sense of the case and to avoid unnecessary delay of disposition of the case on the merits.”
Lichtenstein v. Consolidated Services Group, Inc., 173 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1999). See also
Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 523 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[a]lthough the timing of sanctions rests
in the district judge’s discretion, Rule 11 sanctions normally will be determined at the end of
litigation”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1983 Amendment (“The time when
Sun River does not provide any evidence to support its allegations.
sanctions are to be imposed rests in the discretion of the trial judge. However, it is anticipated
that in the case of pleadings the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the
end of the litigation, and in the case of motions at the time when the motion is decided or shortly
thereafter.”); 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1337.1
(3d ed. 2004) (“[i]f the challenged conduct is the institution of the action itself . . . whether there
has been a Rule 11 violation generally is not decided until after the litigation is completed, in
order to avoid delaying the disposition of the merits of the case.”).
I decline to consider Sun River’s Motion until the claims are addressed on their merits
through an appropriate dispositive motion or trial. Accordingly, the Motion is denied without
The plaintiff contends that Sun River’s Motion is baseless and moves for attorney’s fees
and costs incurred in defending the Motion as provided in Rule 11(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. Response
in Opposition to Sun River’s Motion for Sanctions, p. 15. Because I decline to address Sun
River’s Motion at this time, the plaintiff’s motion is moot. Moreover, “[a] motion shall not be
included in a response or reply to the original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate
paper.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Motion [Doc. # 69] is DENIED without prejudice; and
(2) Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED as moot. All future requests for relief
shall be by motion that complies with Local Rule 7.1C.
Dated March 19, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?