Drake v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Plaintiff's "Motion for Sanctions against Defendant and its Counsel under Rule 11 and Inherent Power of the Court" (D.I. 18) is DENIED. Counsel for Defendants need not engage in any further communications with Plaintiff related to this matter. ***Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff on 3/11/2025***. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 3/10/2025. (mws)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ERIC DRAKE,

Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 24-CV-00281CFC

GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY and HENRY
LAWRENCE CULP JR.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before me is Plaintiff Eric Drake's "Motion for Sanctions against
Defendant and its Counsel under Rule 11 and Inherent Power of the Court."
D.I. 18. The motion is replete with unfounded accusations about Defendants'
counsel and it is patently frivolous. Drake accuses Defendants' counsel of
"unsavory and unprofessional conduct," D.I. 18 ,r 11, but the attachments to the
relevant pleadings--email communications and a compact disc and transcript of a
call Drake had with counsel that Drake secretly recorded-show the exact
opposite. See D.I. 20-1; D.I. 20-2; D.I. 20-3; D.I. 20-4; D.I. 20-5; D.I. 18-2 at 718. Counsel have been remarkably patient, courteous, and professional in their
dealings with Drake.

If anyone should be sanctioned here it is Drake, who has impliedly
threatened and tried to intimidate counsel and their clients. Drake, for example,
told counsel, "[m]y investigators located your residence," D.I. 20-1 at 2, "I am a
chosen minister, God will punish you and possibly your family for your unethical
and deplorable actions," D.I. 20-2 at 2, and "I did a complete background of you
and the CEO of GE, which includes family history, education, previous marriages,
etc," D.I. 20-3 at 2. He also informed counsel that he "located the CEO of GE's
residence." D.I. 20-2 at 2.
Drake has a long history of engaging in abusive litigation tactics. Federal
courts in Texas and Georgia have deemed him a "vexatious litigant" and subjected
him to filing restrictions and fines because of his "insulting and disparaging"
pleadings and "abusive attempts to sue judges, the spouses of lawyers, and anyone
who had displeased him in even the most tenuous connection with a seemingly
unlimited array of claims." Drake v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2022 WL 4138355 at
*l, *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022); Drake v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co., 2020 WL
3454585 (S.D. Ga. May 27, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL
3453853 (S.D. Ga. June 24, 2020). "As a result of his vexatious filing history,"
Drake is prohibited from prosecuting any lawsuit in a court that lies within the
Fifth Federal Judicial Circuit until he pays a $2,000 sanction, and, then, only ifhe
receives permission from the court. See Order, Drake v. FedEx Ground Package
2

Sys., Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00571-X-BK (N.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2024), ECF 96. Because
of his litigation abuses in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, the court there has warned Drake that "the filing of any future lawsuit
determined to be frivolous or harassing in nature will likely result in the imposition
of monetary sanctions against [him]." Drake v. Nie/lo Co., 2020 WL 1182575, at
*4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL
1937760 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020). Texas state courts have also deemed Drake to
be a vexatious litigant, and he is prohibited from filing suits in those courts unless
he receives authorization from an administrative judge. See Drake v. Costume

Armour, Inc., 136 F. App'x 505 (5th Cir. 2018).
In light of this history and Drake's unacceptable communications with
counsel in this case, any abusive or intimidating conduct by Drake in this Court in
the future will result in filing restrictions and a substantial fine.
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington on this Tenth day of March in 2025, it
is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs "Motion for Sanctions against Defendant
and its Counsel under Rule 11 and Inherent Power of the Court" (D.I. 18) is

3

DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Defendants need not
engage in any further communications with Plaintiff related to this matter.

FJUDGE

4