Lu v. Hulme et al

Filing 15

Opposition re 13 MOTION for Sanctions Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motions for Sanctions and for Factual and Legal Proof of Attorney-Client Relationship filed by George Hulme, Trustees of Boston Public Library. (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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
SANCTION AND FOR FACTUAL AND LEGAL PROOF OF ATTORNEYCLIENT RELATIONSHIP
The Defendants Trustees of the Boston Public Library (“Trustees”) and George
Hulme (“Hulme”) in his individual and official capacities, (collectively, the
“Defendants”), submit this Opposition to Plaintiff’s Cross-Motions for Sanction and For
Factual and Legal Proof of Attorney-Client Relationship (“Motions”). Plaintiff, Friedrich
Lu (“Plaintiff”) Motions fail to set forth any factual or legal basis for seeking sanctions.
ARUGMENT
To succeed on a motion for sanctions, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that
Defendants’ counsel “has signed a pleading with an improper purpose or without having
made reasonable inquiry as to whether it is well grounded in fact and warranted by
existing law or a nonfrivilous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of
existing law.” See Spencer v. Cohen, 886 F. Supp. 235, 237 (N.D.N.Y. 1995); see also
Cardillo v. Cardillo, 360 F. Supp. 2d 402, 413 (D.R.I. 2005) (noting that the “standard

under Rule 11 is an objective one, i.e., ‘reasonableness under the circumstances.’”)
(citations omitted). While Rule 11 enables a court to impose sanctions for unfounded
claims, the rule does not carry a strict liability standard and “a showing of at least
culpable carelessness” must be found before issuing sanctions. See CQ Int’l Co., Inc. v.
Rochem Int’l, Inc., USA, 659 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir. 2011).
Here, the Defendants filed their Motion for Sanctions after learning that this Court
had ordered Plaintiff to filed a copy of a prior Order and certify compliance with it
whenever filing a new case in the District of Massachusetts. Defendants’ Motion is
based on their extensive review of numerous cases filed by Plaintiff in this District and is
based on a reasonable interpretation of Court’s Order.
Additionally, “a motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other
motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b).” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Here, the Plaintiff has filed his Cross-Motion for Sanctions with an
Opposition to Motion for Attorneys Fees as well as a Motion for Factual and Legal Proof
of Attorney-Client Relationship. On its face, Plaintiff’s filings do not seem to allege any
specific conduct that warrants sanctions other than alleging that Defendants’ pending
Motion for Fees, Costs and Sanctions “is so egregious that Rule 11 sanction is called
for.” See Plaintiff’s Motions at Section I, ¶ 6. There are other allegations set forth in
Plaintiff’s filing, but it is unclear whether they are in response to an Opposition to Motion
for Attorneys Fees or whether they form the basis of the Cross-Motion for Sanctions.
As for the Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Factual and Legal Proof of AttorneyClient Relationship, the Defendants rest on their arguments as set forth in their pending

2

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify So Called Counsel. See Civil Docket 1:12cv-11117-MLW, Entry No. 10, filed July 13, 2012.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants, the Trustees of the Boston Public
Library and George Hulme, respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiff’s CrossMotions for Sanction and For Factual and Legal Proof of Attorney-Client Relationship.

Respectfully submitted,

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

/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]

Date: January 25, 2013

LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on January 25, 2013, 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 non-registered participants per agreement with Plaintiff.
/s/Caroline O. Driscoll
Caroline O. Driscoll

3