Lu v. Hulme et al

Filing 13

MOTION for Sanctions by George Hulme, Trustees of Boston Public Library. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits to Defendants' Motion for Sanctions)(Driscoll, Caroline)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11117-MLW

FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE HULME, in his individual
capacity and in his official capacity,
TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC
LIBRARY,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS GEORGE HULME AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC
LIBRARY’S MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS AND SANCTIONS AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff, Friedrich Lu (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against the Defendants Trustees of
the Boston Public Library (“Trustees”) and George Hulme (“Hulme”), in his individual and
official capacities, alleges violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I) and the
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12 § 11I (“MCRA”) (“Count II”). The Defendants
moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the
grounds that it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Recently, the Defendants
became aware of an order from this court requiring Plaintiff to file a copy of a 2002 order with
any new filings in the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order
and certify as such.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is the latest manifestation of his unremitting refusal to abide by the
authority and orders of this Court. Accordingly, the Defendants request entry of an order

awarding reasonable attorneys fees, costs and sanctions against the Plaintiff in an amount
sufficient to deter further disregard of court orders.
In support of this motion, the Defendants submit the accompanying memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,

DEFENDANTS GEORGE HULME, in his
individual capacity and in his official capacity
and TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC
LIBRARY
William Sinnott
Corporation Counsel
By their attorneys:

Date: December 20, 2012

/s/Caroline O. Driscoll____________
Caroline O. Driscoll, BBO# 647916
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of Boston Law Department
City Hall, Room 615
Boston, MA 02201
[phone]

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on December 19, 2012 I emailed Plaintiff regarding the Defendants’
intention to file this Motion, but was unable to resolve or narrow the issues raised in this Motion.
I also certify that on December 20, 2012, I filed this document through the Court’s
CM/ECF system and that an electronic copy will be sent via email to those identified as nonregistered participants per agreement with Plaintiff.

/s/Caroline O. Driscoll
Caroline O. Driscoll

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11117-MLW

FRIEDRICH LU,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE HULME, in his individual
capacity and in his official capacity,
TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC
LIBRARY,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS GEORGE HULME AND THE
TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY’S MOTION FOR FEES, COSTS
AND SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Friedrich Lu (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against the Defendants Trustees of

the Boston Public Library (“Trustees”) and George Hulme (“Hulme”) in his individual and
official capacities,(collectively, the “Defendants”), alleges violations of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I) and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12 § 11I (“MCRA”)
(“Count II”). The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the grounds that it fails to state a claim for which relief may be
granted. The Defendants hereby also request entry of an order awarding reasonable attorneys
fees, costs and sanctions against the Plaintiff due to his failure to comply with the prior orders of
this Court.

3

II.

ARGUMENT
Plaintiff’s Complaint is merely the latest manifestation of his unremitting refusal to abide

by the authority of this Court. See Exhibit A (Plaintiff’s Compl.). In filing this Complaint,
Plaintiff failed to comply with the order of Judge Mark L. Wolf dated March 29, 2002, C.A. No.
00-11492-MLW, attached as Exhibit B, (“the Wolf Order”), prohibiting Plaintiff from filing any
pleadings or other documents in this court without attaching a copy of the Wolf Order and
certifying that he has complied with it in good faith. See also Exs. C (Docket from case #1:00cv-11492-MLW), D (Plaintiff’s Complaint from case #1:00-cv-11492-MLW). The Wolf Order
states that on “January 2, 2002, the Suffolk Superior Court Division of the Trial Court
Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts enjoined [the Plaintiff] from filing any new
action at law or equity in the State of Massachusetts without complying with certain procedures.”
See Ex. D at 15-16 Judge Wolf explains that Plaintiff’s complaints have so “significantly
burdened the state and federal court systems and their limited resources” that he deemed it
necessary to order that any documents the Plaintiff files in Massachusetts District Court include
the Wolf Order and the Plaintiff’s certification of compliance. Id. at 15.
Notably, the Complaint in the present case against the Defendants is not the first time that
Plaintiff has disregarded the Wolf Order. Shortly after the Wolf Order, Plaintiff filed another
suit in which Judge Reginald C. Lindsay ordered Plaintiff to pay the clerk of the court, by way of
a sanction, the sum of $500 for violating the court orders and the Federal Rules. See Exs. E
(Docket from case #1:02-cv-11860-RCL), F (Plaintiff’s Complaint from case #1:02-cv-11860RCL), G (Judge Lindsay’s Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss from case #1:02-cv-11860RCL).

4

Although Plaintiff paid the $500 sanction as ordered, it was without effect, as Plaintiff
continued to ignore the authority and rules of the Court. See Exs. H (Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss or in the Alternative to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions in case #1:02cv-11860-RCL), I (Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or
in the Alternative to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions in case #1:02-cv-11860RCL). In doing so, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that such modest monetary sanctions do not
deter his behavior in ignoring an insulting the court orders.
In 2002, Plaintiff claimed that he was “self-employed—spending full time engaging in
lawsuits, which is my trade, profession, or business.” Ex. J (Plaintiff’s Motion to Prosecute
Appeal in Forma Pauperis from case #1:02-cv-11860-RCL). He further stated that he “received
no income, except for gifts from friends amounting to about fifteen hundred dollars which were
used entirely as filing fees for various court cases, as well as for the printing of legal documents
… [f]or years I have sued numerous persons and firms.” Id. Indeed, Plaintiff has filed at least
eighteen suits in Massachusetts District Court and at least eleven suits in the courts of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.1

III.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s continued failure to comply with the Wolf Order in the present case, the Court

should order the Plaintiff to deliver to the clerk of the Court sanctions in an amount sufficient to
deter further disregard by the Plaintiff of this Court’s order and also award the Defendants
reasonable attorneys fees and costs in having to defend against the present action. Therefore, the

1

Plaintiff has another case currently pending in the District of Massachusetts involving the Boston Police
Department (#12-CV-10326-WGY). The City of Boston has filed a similar motion for sanctions in that case.

5

Defendants strongly recommend that those sanctions should be in an amount not less than
$5,000.

Respectfully submitted,

DEFENDANTS GEORGE HULME, in his
individual capacity and in his official capacity
and TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC
LIBRARY
William Sinnott
Corporation Counsel
By their attorneys:

Date: December 20, 2012

/s/Caroline O. Driscoll____________
Caroline O. Driscoll, BBO# 647916
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of Boston Law Department
City Hall, Room 615
Boston, MA 02201
[phone]

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on December 19, 2012 I emailed Plaintiff regarding the Defendants’
intention to file this Motion, but was unable to resolve or narrow the issues raised in this Motion.
I also certify that on December 20, 2012, I filed this document through the Court’s
CM/ECF system and that an electronic copy will be sent via email to those identified as nonregistered participants per agreement with Plaintiff.

/s/Caroline O. Driscoll
Caroline O. Driscoll

6