Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Sanctions; finding as moot 29 Motion to Strike ; denying 24 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 12/6/2013. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LINZIE J. LEDBETTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES, a
project of the Carbondale Interfaith Council,
BOBBY ANDERSON, and MICHAEL
HEATH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-308-DRH-SCW

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motions fo Sanctions or Contempt of Court Charges
(Doc. 24). Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendants and Defendants’ attorney Shari Rhode as
Plaintiff argues that counsel for Defendants lied to this Court on October 17, 2013. Defendants have
filed a Response (Doc. 27) to the motion, arguing that they did not mislead the Court. Plaintiff has
since filed another Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 28) arguing that Defendants lied to the Court again in
their Response to his original motion. Defendants filed a Motion to Strike (Do. 29) Plaintiff’s newly
filed Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 28), arguing that it was in actuality a Reply brief and that it simply
rehashed Plaintiff’s original arguments for sanctions.
On October 17, 2013, the Court held a telephone status conference with the parties.
Plaintiff alleges that at that conference, Defendants’ counsel indicated that Defendants had not
applied to their insurance company for legal fees in the present case. Plaintiff points out that
Defendants and Plaintiff are listed as parties in a Complaint filed by First Nonprofit Insurance
Company in the First Judicial Circuit in Jackson County, Illinois (Doc. 24 p. 7). The stipulation of

dismissal in that case indicated that Defendants tendered the Complaint in the present case to First
Nonprofit Insurance Company in order to seek indemnity and that First Nonprofit denied that the
policy provided Defendants with coverage (Id. at p. 8). Plaintiff argues that the statement in the
stipulation, along with the signatures of Defendants, contradicts attorney Rhode’s statement to the
Court on October 17, 2013.
Defendants filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 27).
Defendants indicate that they did not apply to their insurance carrier for coverage in this case as they
originally inquired of their insurance broker as to whether their policy covered this case, and learned
that the termination of Plaintiff predated the policy and thus Defendants were not covered by
insurance. Defendants indicate that they did not provide First Nonprofit with a Complaint as
indicated in the stipulation of dismissal but that First Nonprofit received the copy from the insurance
broker (Doc. 27 Ex. A). First Nonprofit then filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment without
contacting Defendants or the undersigned and when undersigned learned of the Complaint, she
contacted First Nonprofit’s counsel and agreed to a dismissal as Defendants understood that the claim
in this case was not covered by the policy.
Here, the Court finds that Defendants have not mislead the Court as to whether they
sought coverage from their insurance for the present claim. Although the Court acknowledges that
the Stipulation filed in state court is somewhat confusing as it does indicated that Defendants tendered
First Nonprofit with the present Complaint, the Court accepts Defendants’ assertions that this clause
was a simple mistake and that they had not sought coverage in this case because they had inquired of
their insurance broker and learned that their policy did not cover the current claims. The Court finds
nothing misleading in the statements made to the Court by Defendants’ counsel on October 17, 2013,
nor does the Court find any deceptive practices by counsel in her Response to Plaintiff’s motion.
Thus, the Court will not sanction Defendants and accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for

sanction 1 (Docs. 24 and 28) and FINDS AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to strike (Doc. 29).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 6, 2013.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s second motion for sanctions posed numerous questions to Defendants’
counsel and also directed allegations and arguments to defense counsel, which is improper. All
arguments in a motion should be addressed to the Court, not to counsel.