Eastern Property Development LLC et al v. Gill

Filing 81

ORDER denying 75 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 76 Motion for Sanctions.Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 07/13/2012. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
EASTERN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
LLC and SOUTH EAST ENTERPRISE
GROUP LLC,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

*
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-62 (CDL)

vs.

*

LOREN C. GILL,

*

Defendant.

*

O R D E R
The Court recently granted Defendant Loren Gill’s (“Loren
Gill”)

partial

summary

judgment

motion

with

respect

to

the

ownership of a company called Elm Leasing, LLC (“Elm Leasing”).
E.

Prop.

Dev.

LLC

v.

Gill,

No.

1424664, at *1 (Apr. 24, 2012).
genuine

fact

dispute

exists

4:11-CV-62

(CDL),

2012

WL

The Court concluded that no

regarding

the

ownership

of

Elm

Leasing and that the undisputed material facts establish that
Loren Gill is the sole member of Elm Leasing with all rights
associated with such ownership.

Id.

Now, Loren Gill contends

that Plaintiffs Eastern Property Development LLC and South East
Enterprise

Group

LLC

(“Plaintiffs”)

should

be

sanctioned

opposing Loren Gill’s partial summary judgment motion.

for

For the

reasons set forth below, the Court disagrees, and Loren Gill’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 75) and Motion for Sanctions
(ECF No. 76) are denied.

Loren

Gill

contends

that

when

Plaintiffs

opposed

Loren

Gill’s summary judgment motion and denied that Loren Gill is the
owner of Elm Properties, Plaintiffs acted wantonly and in bad
faith and for vexatious and oppressive reasons.

Loren Gill asks

that the Court impose sanctions against Plaintiffs under (1) the
Court’s inherent authority to impose sanctions, (2) Federal Rule
of

Civil

Procedure

Procedure

11(c).

56(h),

District

and

(3)

courts

Federal

possess

Rule

inherent

of

Civil

power

to

assess attorney’s fees as a sanction when a party has “acted in
bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.”
Chambers

v.

NASCO,

Inc.,

501

U.S.

32,

46

(1991)

(internal

quotation marks omitted); accord In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1575
(11th Cir. 1995).

“To exercise its inherent power a court must

find that the party acted in bad faith.”

McDonald v. Cooper

Tire & Rubber Co., 186 F. App’x 930, 931 (11th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court may also

award attorney’s fees as a sanction against a party who, “in bad
faith or solely for delay,” submits an affidavit or declaration
in connection with a summary judgment motion.
56(h).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Finally, the Court may sanction a party who presents a

pleading or motion “for any improper purpose” or whose factual
contentions do not have evidentiary support.
11(b)-(c).

2

Fed. R. Civ. P.

To assess sanctions against Plaintiffs, the Court must find
that

Plaintiffs

acted

faith

an

did

point

to

create

summary

for

While the Court ultimately concluded that Plaintiffs
evidence

Gill’s

or

motion.

enough

Loren

bad

purpose

to

opposing

in

improper

not

in

frivolously,

a

judgment

genuine

fact

dispute regarding the ownership of Elm Leasing, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs made good faith arguments and representations
regarding the ownership of Elm Leasing and that their opposition
to Loren Gill’s summary judgment motion was not frivolous, in
bad faith or for an improper purpose.

Accordingly, Loren Gill’s

Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 75) and Motion for Sanctions
(ECF No. 76) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of July, 2012.
s/ Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3