First Mutual Group, LP v. Ward

Filing 20

ORDER denying 15 Defendant Donald R. Ward, Jr.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. 11. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/2/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
FIRST MUTUAL GROUP, LP,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-673-FtM-38DNF

DONALD R. WARD, JR.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Donald R. Ward, Jr.'s Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. 11 (Doc. #15) filed on May 11, 2015.
Although given the opportunity, Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP did not timely respond. This
matter is ripe for review.
On November 19, 2014, Plaintiff First Mutual Group, LP initiated a lawsuit against
Defendant Donald R. Ward, Jr. claiming Ward breached a contract, was negligent, and was
grossly negligent. (Doc. #1). Now, Ward brings this Rule 11 motion for sanctions on the
premise that First Mutual Group is aware or should have been aware its claims against Ward
are frivolous because they are barred by a statute of limitations.2
Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there are three types of conduct
that warrant sanctions:
(1) when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable factual basis; (2) when
the party files a pleading that is based on a legal theory that has no reasonable
1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this Court does not
endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that
a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
2 Interestingly, Ward does not address statute of limitations in his motion to dismiss. (See Doc. #17).

chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to
change existing law; and (3) when the party files a pleading in bad faith for an
improper purposes.
Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1514 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 855 (1991). If
sanctions are warranted, then the Court may impose, for example, reasonably attorney’s fees
and expenses incurred as a direct result of a violation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2).
Here, Rule 11 sanctions are wholly inappropriate. A plain reading of the Complaint
shows First Mutual Group alleges it learned of the negligent activity in 2014. (See Doc. #1, at
4). Ward points to no statute for the Court to conclusively find the Complaint is barred by a
statute of limitations. In general, it appears the statute of limitations has not lapsed and the
Complaint is not frivolous. See generally Vargue By and Through Vargas v. Glades Gen.
Hosp., 566 So.2d 282, 286 (4th DCA 1990) (noting the statute of limitations begins to run
when a plaintiff knows or should have known of negligence); Schetter v. Jordan, 294 So.2d
130, 131 (4th DCA 1974) (same); Hardy Equip. Co., Inc. v. Travis Cosby & Assocs., Inc., 530
So.2d 521, at 521 (1st DCA 1988) (noting professional malpractice statute of limitations is
two years). As such, the motion is due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
Defendant Donald R. Ward, Jr.'s Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ. 11 (Doc. #15) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 1st day of June, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2