Byrd v. Louisville Gas & Electric
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Greg N. Stivers on 7/29/2016 denying 20 Motion for Sanctions. The Court, however, WARNS the unrepresented Plaintiff that future lawsuits filed in this Court related to the two Metcalfe Circuit Court proceedings mentioned in this action may result in sanctions. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff, pro se, Metcalfe Circuit Court(JWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
DAVID F. BYRD et al.
PLAINTIFFS
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV-21-GNS
LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered August 24, 2015, the Court remanded this
removed action to the state court because Plaintiff David F. Byrd1 lacked the authority under 28
U.S.C. § 1441 to remove his own action from state to federal court. Following remand,
Defendant Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E), by counsel, filed a motion for
sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (DN 20).2 In its motion, Defendant argues
that although Plaintiff is unrepresented, this case “presents a unique situation in which Byrd
comes before this Court only after having filed a barrage of motions in the long-concluded
underlying case pending in the Metcalfe Circuit Court.” Defendant reports that, with respect to
the state-court litigation, it has “responded to Byrd’s stream of filings, expending considerable
legal fees in doing so. It has sent counsel to hearings on motions having no basis in either law or
fact, and it demonstrated considerable patience before finally moving to hold the Byrds in
contempt [in state court] for abusing the legal process.” Defendant asserts:
By filing this motion, LG&E is not asking this Court to award sanctions in
the form of legal fees and costs it has expended throughout the lengthy state
court proceedings. But it is important for the Court to understand that this
motion is not being filed merely due to Byrd’s improper attempt to remove
this case; it is being filed because Byrd’s motion is simply the latest in a
Only Plaintiff David F. Byrd initiated this action by filing a motion seeking “removal of [] cases
from Metcalfe Circuit Court to federal court for a jury Bowling Green, Ky” (DN 1). However, the
plaintiffs listed in the state-court action are David F. Byrd and his wife, Jo Anna Byrd.
1
2
Defendant reports that it served Plaintiff David Byrd with a copy of the motion and supporting
memorandum months before filing the instant motion, thereby complying with the “safe harbor”
provision of Rule 11(c)(2).
long line of filings that should never have been made. Sanctions are,
therefore, warranted for the purpose of discouraging further abuse of the
legal system and the harassment of LG&E that necessarily flows from it.
“Rule 11 provides that the court may impose an appropriate sanctions if pleadings or
claims are presented for an improper purpose, are not warranted by existing law or a
nonfrivolous extension of the law, or if the allegations and factual contentions do not have
evidentiary support.” First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501,
526 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Ridder v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 293 (6th Cir. 1997)). The
imposition of sanctions for violations of Rule 11 is discretionary rather than mandatory. Ridder
v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d at 293-94 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)).
Upon consideration, although Plaintiff’s removal was not warranted by law, the Court
cannot conclude that the unrepresented litigant sought to remove the state-court actions for an
improper purpose. While his filing in federal court may support a finding of ignorance of the
removal requirements, it does not suggest harassment or abuse of the federal legal system. And
other than Plaintiff seeking to remove the two state-court actions, Plaintiff has filed no other case
in this Court.
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for sanctions (DN 20) is
DENIED.
The Court, however, WARNS the unrepresented Plaintiff that future lawsuits filed
in this Court related to the two Metcalfe Circuit Court proceedings mentioned in this
action may result in sanctions.
Date:
July 29, 2016
cc:
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
Metcalfe Circuit Court
Greg N. Stivers, Judge
United States District Court
4416.005
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?