Barrow v. Barrow, Jr. et al

Filing 108

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Defendant Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice. (Schultz, Allison)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
ANITA M. BARROW,
)
)
Civil Action No.
Plaintiff,
)
16-11493-FDS
)
v.
)
)
HERBERT A. BARROW, JR., et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT BARNSTABLE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
This action arises out of the partition by sale of a property in Falmouth, Massachusetts,
formerly owned by Emma Barrow, the mother of plaintiff Anita Barrow. Plaintiff, proceeding
pro se, filed this action contending that her siblings and various other persons involved in the
property’s alleged decline in value and its ultimate sale—including the Barnstable County
Department of Health and Environment (“BCDHE”), which, according to the complaint, filed a
betterment lien against the property—discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation
of state and federal law, including the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., and
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983.
On September 8, 2016, the BCDHE moved to dismiss the claims against it for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the Court granted. The BCDHE then
moved for an order of sanctions against plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, in the amount of
its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes courts to impose sanctions
against attorneys or unrepresented parties for filing pleadings, written motions, or other papers

that: (1) are “presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,” (2) contain claims not
“warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
existing law or for establishing new law,” or (3) contain factual contentions (or denials) without
evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c). Where the sanctions sought are attorneys’ fees
and costs, courts generally require that the party seeking sanctions support the requested amount
with affidavits and other relevant materials detailing the fees and costs incurred in the
representation. See Cardillo v. Cardillo, 360 F. Supp. 2d 402, 406 (D. Mass. 2005); Hochen v.
Bobst Group, Inc., 198 F.R.D. 11, 18 (D. Mass. 2000).
Here, the BCDHE has not submitted any documentation detailing either the total amount
of fees and costs incurred, the hours worked and rates charged by its attorneys, or the
reasonability of the hours worked and rates charged. Accordingly, the BCDHE’s motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs will be DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to its renewal with
appropriate supporting materials.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: July 10, 2017

2