Tilmon-Jones v. Boladian et al

Filing 110

ORDER granting 100 Sealed Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANYCE H. TILMON-JONES, individually
and in her capacity as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Abrim Tilmon, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 06-14048
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
BRIDGEPORT MUSIC, INC., a
Michigan corporation, and
ARMEN BOLADIAN, an individual,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Before the court is Defendants’ motion for sanctions, which has been fully briefed. The
court did not hear oral argument.
The parties settled this action on September 6, 2007. On January 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed
a motion to enforce the settlement, which was withdrawn on February 18, 2010. Plaintiff filed a
motion to set aside the settlement for fraud on the court on November 19, 2010. After
Defendants responded to the motion, asserting that it had no merit, Plaintiff withdrew the motion
on January 4, 2011. At that time, Defendants sought sanctions, which the court declined to grant
in light of Plaintiff’s voluntary withdrawal of the motion.
On November 1, 2011, Plaintiff re-filed her motion to set aside the settlement, alleging
fraud on the court and making serious allegations of misconduct on the part of defense counsel.
Finding Plaintiff’s motion to be without merit, the court denied it. Defendants seek sanctions
again, pursuant to Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Defendants have now been forced to defend against Plaintiff’s frivolous attempts to reopen this matter twice. The first time, the court gave Plaintiff’s counsel the benefit of the doubt,
in light of the fact that Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the motion. This time, the court must
conclude that not only were Plaintiff’s motions without merit, but also that Plaintiff’s counsel
should have known, at the time of filing of the second motion, that they were without factual or
legal basis. Faced with Defendants’ first response and motion for sanctions, Plaintiff’s counsel
continued to press to re-open this matter a second time, based upon the same facts presented in
the first motion. This is not reasonable behavior and it suggests to the court that Plaintiff’s
counsel has not filed these motions based upon their merit, but for the improper purpose of
harassing Defendants. Further, in doing so, Plaintiff’s counsel has vexatiously and unreasonably
multiplied these proceedings.
Accordingly, the court finds that sanctions are appropriate pursuant to Rule 11 and 28
U.S.C. § 1927. See Runfola & `Assocs., Inc. v. Spectrum Reporting II, Inc., 88 F.3d 368, 37374 (6th Cir. 1996) (sanctions appropriate as a result of “the persistence in pursuing [a] claim after
the pleader has or should have become aware of its lack of merit”). Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay
Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in responding to both motions to set aside the
settlement. Defendants shall submit the appropriate affidavits and billing records in support of
their request for fees within ten days of the date of this order. The court also imposes a sanction
of $5,000 to be paid to the Clerk of the Court forthwith.
SO ORDERED.
s/John Corbett O'Meara
United States District Judge
Date: September 26, 2012

-2-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on this date, September 26, 2012, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-