2002 JBO Trust No. 1 et al v. American Express Company et al
Filing
79
ORDERED that Defendants American Express Tax and Business Services, Inc.,d/b/a RSM McGladery, LLC, Robert Goldstein, and Kurt Anderson's 36 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims against American Express Tax and Business Services, Inc., d/b/a RSM McGladery, LLC, Robert Goldstein, and Kurt Anderson are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' 37 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 2/20/13. (dno, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
2002 JBO TRUST NO. 1, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 12-1282
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO, ET AL.
SECTION “L” (3)
ORDER
The Court has received Defendants American Express Tax and Business Services, Inc.,
d/b/a RSM McGladery, LLC, Robert Goldstein, and Kurt Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec.
Doc. 36) and Motion for Sanctions (Rec. Doc. 37).
The Court has received no opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, this motion
is deemed to be unopposed, and furthermore, it appearing to the Court that the motion is
grounded in law and fact, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 36)
is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against American Express Tax and Business Services, Inc.,
d/b/a RSM McGladery, LLC, Robert Goldstein, and Kurt Anderson are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Plaintiffs’ former counsel opposes the Motion for Sanctions. The Court has reviewed the
briefs and concludes that sanctions are not warranted in this case. In support of their Motion for
Sanctions, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claims are clearly meritless under controlling Fifth
Circuit precedent. In opposition to Defendants’ motion, however, Plaintiffs’ former counsel
raises several arguments in favor of distinguishing this case. Plaintiffs’ arguments may not have
prevailed had the parties fully briefed and argued Defendants’ motion to dismiss; nonetheless,
1
they are sufficiently non-frivolous for the Court to decline to sanction Plaintiffs’ former counsel.
Although Defendants correctly point out that the Rule 11 requirement of reasonable inquiry is
particularly important in the context of RICO claims, they have not shown sufficiently serious
misconduct to justify sanctions in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Rec.
Doc. 37) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of February, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?