Bostic v. Lauragina Professional Transport, LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 24 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 10/1/14. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
LATORA BOSTIC,

No. 24. LogistiCare argues that, because
Bostic has no legal basis for her claim
against it, it should be awarded sanctions
against her. Id. at 1.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff,
V

4: 14-cv-83

.

PROFESSIONAL
LAURAGINA
TRANSPORT, LLC; JOSEPH L.
PORTER, ST.; WE CARE
TRANSPORTATION, LLC; and
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.

•)

1 I)

I :1

I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is a motion by
LogistiCare Solutions, LLC ("LogistiCare"),
seeking sanctions. ECF No. 24.
LogistiCare seeks sanctions against Plaintiff
Latora Bostic under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11. Id. at 1-2. For the reasons set
DENIES
forth below, the Court
LogistiCare' s Motion.

H. FACTS
Bostic alleges that she was fired from
her employment at We Care Transportation,
LLC ("We Care"), because she had filed a
charge against her previous employer with
the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"). ECF No. 24-4 at
11-12. In her complaint, Bostic alleges that
LogistiCare is a joint employer with We
Care, and that it is therefore jointly liable for
her termination. Id at 17.
In response to being named a defendant,
LogistiCare filed a Rule 11 Motion. ECF

The decision whether to impose
sanctions is committed to the discretion of
the trial court. See, e.g., Thompson v.
RelationServe Media, Inc., 610 F.3d 628,
636 (11th Cir. 2010). Rule 11 sanctions are
appropriate
(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.

Jones v. mt '1 Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d
692, 694 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Souran v.
Travelers Ins. Co., 982 F.2d 1497, 1506
(11th Cir. 1993)). To determine whether the
filing was reasonable, courts evaluate
whether a reasonable inquiry was made,
looking to how much time was available for
investigation, whether reliance upon client
representations was necessary, and the
extent to which factual development
required discovery. Id. at 695. In making
this evaluation, courts are "expected to
avoid using the wisdom of hindsight and
should test the signer's conduct by inquiring
what was reasonable to believe at the time
the pleading, motion, or other paper was
submitted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 advisory
committee's note.

I.

875 F.2d 831, 835 (11th Cir. 1989)). The
Court finds that it was reasonable for
Bostic's attorney to believe that the
pleadings were appropriate at the time they
were filed.

IV. ANALYSIS
The only issue currently before the Court
is whether Rule 11 sanctions should be
awarded to LogistiCare and against Bostic.
The key question here is whether Bostic had
a reasonable factual basis for her claim
against LogistiCare. The Court finds that
Bostic did have such a basis.

LogistiCare also argues that Bostic has
failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish
that LogistiCare was a joint employer with
We Care. ECF No. 36 at 5-6. The Court
reminds LogistiCare that a motion for
sanctions is distinct from a motion to
dismiss. "The mere fact that the plaintiffs
fail to state a claim . . . does not mean that
Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed.
'Otherwise Rule 11 sanctions would be
imposed whenever a complaint was
dismissed, thereby transforming it into a fee
shifting statute under which the loser pays."
Team Obsolete Ltd v. A.H.R.M.A. Ltd., 216
F.R.D. 29, 44 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting
Harlyn Sales Corp. Profit Sharing Plan v.
Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 9 F.3d 1263, 1270
(7th Cir. 1993)).

In an affidavit submitted to the Court,
Bostic testified that one condition of her
employment was meeting "compliance and
credentialing requirements." ECF No. 30.-1
at 3. She also believed that she was subject
to removal, control, and oversight by
LogistiCare. Id. According to Bostic's
affidavit, her supervisors at both her
previous company and at We Care referred
to a person at LogistiCare as "their boss."
Id. at 4. Bostic recites similar facts in her
complaint. See ECF No. 1-1 at 7, 12.
Bostic's allegations may be inaccurate,
and LogistiCare has argued as much, see
ECF No. 35. But the statements certainly
provide a reasonable basis upon which
Bostic would file suit against LogistiCare.
Even if Bostic's allegations prove in
hindsight to be inaccurate, the Court will not
use the wisdom of hindsight to evaluate her
allegations. See Jones, 49 F.3d at 695.
"Under [Rule 11,] the district court must
focus on what was reasonable for an
attorney to believe at the time the pleadings
were filed, not on what the court later finds
to be the case." Corp. of the Presiding
Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints v. Associated Contractors,
Inc., 877 F.2d 938, 941 (11th Cir. 1989)
(alteration in original) (quoting Threaf
Props., Ltd. v. Title Ins. Co. of Minnesota,

V. CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Bostic did not file a
complaint without any reasonable factual
basis. Therefore, the Court DENIES
LogistiCare's Rule 11 Motion.

This

_,L day of September 2014.

UNITED STATES DISTZGEORGIA
COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT

2