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)

Download PDF
  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   

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?