Barrera et al v. Mid America Management et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 52 Motion for Sanctions; denying 53 Motion for Bill of Costs. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 6/20/2014.Mailed to pro se parties Vera Barrera, Anthony Lewis, and Anadelia LeDesma by regular mail. (smg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

VERA BARRERA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MID AMERICA MANAGEMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No.

12-1305-MLB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendants’ motion for
sanctions (Doc. 52) and plaintiffs’ motion for costs (Doc. 53).

On

July 23, 2013, the court dismissed this case with prejudice after an
evidentiary hearing.

(Doc. 47).

Plaintiffs appealed.

On March 14,

2014, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision and found the appeal
frivolous.

(Doc. 51).

Defendants now move for sanctions and seek reimbursement of
attorney’s fees in the amount of $22,620.04.

Plaintiffs oppose the

motion and seek costs associated with the filing of their response to
the motion.
Analysis
Defendants urge this court to sanction plaintiffs due to their
bad faith and abusive litigation practices, citing Roadway Exp., Inc.
v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980).1 Plaintiff Anthony Lewis has been
identified as a plaintiff in sixteen cases in this court.
1

The court

In addition to seeking sanctions in this court, defendants
sought attorneys’ fees in the Tenth Circuit case and their motion was
summarily denied. Tenth Circuit Case No. 13-3186, Order filed May 22,
2014.

conducted a review of the cases which were filed by Lewis between the
years 1996 and 2013.

With the exception of this case, no other case

was found to be frivolous.

Lewis has not been subject to sanctions

in any of his cases in this court.
While the court found the allegations in this case to be without
any factual basis, defendants do not cite to any authority which would
support a finding that plaintiffs were acting in bad faith when they
filed this action.
denied.

Therefore, defendants’ motion for sanctions is

(Doc. 52). Similarly, plaintiffs’ motion for costs is denied

as it is without any legal basis.

(Doc. 53).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th

day of June 2014, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-