Southern Snow Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 557

ORDER denying 410 SnoWizard, Inc. and Ronald R. Sciortinos Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown. (Reference: 11-1499)(jrc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SOUTHERN SNOW MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-9170
09-3394
10-0791
11-0880
11-1499

SNOWIZARD HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL

SECTION: “G” (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is SnoWizard, Inc. and Ronald R. Sciortino’s Motion for Sanctions
Pursuant to Rule 11 (Ref: 11-1499) “on the grounds that plaintiffs and their counsel have presented
to the Court a ‘Complaint’ (11-1499), (Rec. Doc. 1) purporting to set forth claims against defendants
under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1891
et seq.,”1 which they assert “manifestly are not warranted by existing law or by any nonfrivolous
argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law insofar as
no reasonable attorney would believe that the alleged acts of defendants sued upon were capable of
satisfying the predicate act requirements of RICO, and that the allegations, purported RICO claims
and other purported counts therein, are being presented to harass and retaliate against defendants,
to cause unnecessary delay in this and other pending litigation involving defendants, and to
needlessly increase the cost to defendants of this and the other pending litigation.”2 Plaintiff filed
an Opposition to SnoWizard’s Motion for Sanctions,3 wherein it attempts to demonstrate the lack
of frivolousness in the filing of its RICO claim by presenting the facts, evidence and law they

1

2

3

Rec. Doc. 410.
Id.
Rec. Doc. 421.

believe support the claim.4 SnoWizard, in a pleading styled, “Reply Memorandum in Support of
SnoWizard Inc. and Ronald R. Sciortino’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 and Motion
to Dismiss Alleged RICO Claims Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Ref: 11-1499)5 attempts to distinguish the
facts and authorities cited by Defendant in their Opposition to SnoWizard, Inc. and Ronald R.
Sciortino’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Ref: 11-1499). Having considered the
motion, the opposition, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will deny SnoWizard
Inc. and Ronald R. Sciortino’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11 (Ref. 11-1499) without
prejudice.
Considering the disputed facts and law contained in the pleadings regarding the Rule 11
motion addressing the alleged frivolousness of respondent’s RICO claim, the Court cannot at this
time, and especially in light of the pending motion to dismiss the RICO claim, determine that the
RICO claims are, as SnoWizard puts it, “manifestly” unwarranted “by existing law or by any
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new
law” and that “no reasonable attorney would believe that the alleged acts of defendants sued upon
were capable of satisfying the predicate act requirement of RICO.”
Further, upon review of the entire docket and record in the consolidated matter, it would be
premature for this Court to conclude that respondent’s motive in filing this claim is to “harass and
retaliate against defendants” and “cause unnecessary delay in this and other pending litigation
involving defendants.” The totality of the circumstances viewed by this Court demonstrates that
there is enough animosity among all of the parties to go around.

4

Rec. Doc. 421.

5

Rec. Doc. 446.

2

In the interest of encouraging professionalism and civility, this Court will hereby deny,
without prejudice, SnoWizard, Inc. and Ronald R. Sciortino’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to
Rule 11 (Ref: 11-1499).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of September, 2012.
________________________________________
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3