MICHAUD v. NEXXLINX OF MAINE INC et al

Filing 117

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES MOTIONS TO AMEND AND MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS denying the following motions: 105 Motion to Amend; 108 Motion for Sanctions; 112 Motion to Amend; 113 Motion to Strike By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (nwd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
KYLE D. MICHAUD

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NEXXLINX OF MAINE, INC., et al. )
)
Defendants.
)

No. 1:13-cv-270-JDL

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO AMEND AND MOTIONS
FOR SANCTIONS
The defendants in this case, Nexxlinx of Maine, Inc. (“Nexxlinx”), and
OpenTable, Inc. (“OpenTable”), have filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement. ECF No. 43. On June 18, 2014, I referred the matter for an evidentiary
hearing and recommended decision by a Magistrate Judge.

ECF No. 71.

The

evidentiary hearing took place on September 4, 2014, before Magistrate Judge John
C. Nivison.

ECF No. 89.

On October 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a

recommended decision finding that the settlement agreement was enforceable. ECF
No. 99. Michaud filed an objection on October 20, 2014, in which he argued that he
was coerced into settling his claims by his former attorney. ECF No. 100.
Michaud’s objection was followed by a flurry of opposing motions. Nexxlinx
moved for sanctions, arguing that sanctions were appropriate because Michaud had
relied on a coercion argument in his Objection despite clearly stating in a June 24,
2014, telephone conference with defense counsel and the Magistrate Judge that he
would not do so. ECF No. 103. In response, Michaud moved for leave to amend his
1 

objection in order to “sharpen[] and expand[]” the argument set forth his Objection in
order to avoid sanctions. ECF No. 105. Michaud also moved for sanctions against
Attorney Michael Feldman, counsel for Nexxlinx, calling Nexxlinx’s motion for
sanctions “an unmistakeable attempt to intimidate a pro se litigant into withdrawing
a legitimate request for de novo review.” ECF No. 106 at 4.1 Nexxlinx then moved to
amend its motion for sanctions to incorporate Michaud’s later filings, saying that
Michaud’s motion for sanctions “serves to needlessly increase the costs of litigation
in this case.” ECF No. 112 at 2. Michaud then moved to strike Nexxlinx’s motion to
amend its motion for sanctions. ECF No. 113.
In light of my order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision,
the competing motions described above are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jon D. Levy___________
United States District Judge
Dated this 19th day of February, 2015.

  Michaud’s argument as to why Feldman should be sanctioned is found in Michaud’s Response in
Opposition to Nexxlinx’s motion for sanctions. ECF No. 106. However, Michaud’s actual motion is
docketed as ECF No. 108. 

1

2