Abdulla v. Chaudhary et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/28/2015. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

SOHAIL ABDULLA,

*
it-

Plaintiff,
vs.
AYAZ

*
*

CHAUDHARY

and ALIYA

CV

114-008

*

CHAUDHARY,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Before

(Doc.

no.

the

12.)

Court

is

Defendants'

motion

for

For the reasons stated herein,

sanctions.

the motion is

DENIED.

On January 13, 2014,

alleging

breach

of

Plaintiff filed a diversity suit

contract.

The

dispute

concerns

real

property located in the Southern District of Georgia and an

alleged partnership between the parties. Plaintiff attaches to
his complaint an agreement purportedly signed by the parties.
(Doc.

no.

4-1.)

On August, 1, 2014, Defendants filed this motion seeking
sanctions pursuant to Federal
(Doc. no.

12.)

Rule

of Civil

Procedure

11.

Defendants contend that service was improper,

a partnership was never formed,

Defendant

Aliya

Chaudhary

should be dismissed because no allegations were made as to

her, and that Plaintiff's complaint is generally devoid of

merit.

Defendant did not file a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff responds that a motion to dismiss, not a motion

for

sanctions,

Defendants

is

raise.

the

proper

Further,

pleading

Plaintiff

for

moves

the

the

issues

Court

for

sanctions against Defendants for submitting falsehoods to the
Court

in

their

answer

to

Plaintiff's

Defendants' motion for sanctions.

(Doc.

complaint

no.

and

in

13.)

Sanctions under Rule 11 are proper (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

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 purpose. Davis v. Carl, 906 F.2d 533, 536 (11th Cir.
1990)

(explaining

that

sanctions

premised

on

factually

groundless allegations are appropriate when plaintiffs offered
no evidence to support their allegations); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
11(c) .

Here, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff has offered no
evidence to support his allegations because Plaintiff attached

to his complaint what appears to be an agreement signed by the
parties.
agreement

Likewise,
in

Defendants

support

of

its

submit

a

position

separate,
that

unsigned

Plaintiff s

allegations are groundless. The Court finds that the pleadings

filed by the parties thus far have a reasonable factual basis

and declines the invitation to impose sanctions. See Manhattan

Const. Co. v. Place Properties LP, 559 F. Appx. 856, 858 (11th
Cir.

2014)(affirming

district

court

denial

of

motion

for

sanctions in a dispute between small business entities where

plaintiff

offered

complaint).
pending,

a

factual

Defendants'

basis

motion

for

for

allegations

summary

in

the

judgment

is

which the Court will consider in due course.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this £>{ jrclay of
, 2015.

Randal Hall

States District Judge
srn District of Georgia