Shafer Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Teamsters

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 71 Defendant Teamsters Local 7's motion for sanctions ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

S H A F E R REDI MIX, INC., P l a in tif f , F ile No. 1:08-CV-652 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL T E A M S T E R S LOCAL 7, Defendant. / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter comes before the Court on Defendant Teamsters Local 7's motion for s a n c tio n s pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 71.) D e f en d a n t contends that sanction are warranted because Plaintiff's claims were not w a rra n te d by existing law, and because, after a reasonable opportunity for further in v e s tig a t io n or discovery, no evidentiary support was discovered for Plaintiff's claims. S p e c if ic a lly, Defendant contends that Plaintiff violated Rule 11 by pursuing its claims f o llo w in g the depositions of Brad Foster and Duane Wixson when a reasonable analysis sh o u ld have demonstrated to Plaintiff that it would not be able to prove that its damages were p ro x im a te ly caused by Local 7's conduct. Rule 11 "imposes on litigants a `continuing duty of candor,' and a litigant may be s a n c tio n e d `for continuing to insist upon a position that is no longer tenable.'" Rentz v. D y n a sty Apparel Indus., Inc., 556 F.3d 389, 395 (6th Cir. 2009). However, the mere fact that

D e f e n d a n t prevailed on its motion for summary judgment is not, in itself, sufficient to e s ta b lis h that Plaintiff should be sanctioned. See Moross Ltd. P'ship v. Fleckenstein Capital, In c ., 466 F.3d 508, 510 (6th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's denial of sanctions for d e f e n d a n ts despite the fact that it granted summary judgment for defendants); see also Tahfs v . Proctor, 316 F.3d 584, 595 (6th Cir. 2003) ("A complaint does not merit sanctions under R u le 11 simply because it merits dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)."). "Rule 11 sanctions a re appropriate when the district court determines that an attorney's conduct is not `re a so n a b le under the circumstances.'" Tahfs, 316 F.3d at 594 (quoting Mann v. G & G Mfg., In c ., 900 F.2d 953, 958 (6th Cir. 1990)). For example, sanctions are appropriate where an a tto rn e y pursues claims that he should know are "frivolous." Moross, 466 F.3d at 520 (q u o tin g Tareco Props., Inc. v. Morriss, 321 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir. 2003)). However, Rule 1 1 "`is not intended to chill an attorney's enthusiasm or creativity in pursuing factual or legal th e o rie s.'" Tahfs, 316 F.3d at 595 (quoting McGhee v. Sanilac County, 934 F.2d 89, 92 (6th C ir .1 9 9 1 ) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 advisory committee's note)). Whether to impose

s a n c tio n s for violations of Rule 11 is a matter left to the court's discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 1 (c )(1 ); Rentz, 556 F.3d at 395. Upon review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not act unreasonably in continuing to prosecute this case after the close of discovery. Although the Court found insufficient e v id e n c e to create a material issue of fact for trial, Plaintiff's position that the circumstantial e v id e n c e and the inferences to be drawn from that evidence were sufficient to survive

2

s u m m a ry judgment was within the realm of reasonable argument, even if it was not u ltim a te ly convincing to the Court. Rule 11 sanctions are not warranted. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Teamsters Local 7's motion for Rule 1 1 sanctions (Dkt. No. 71) is DENIED.

Dated: December 3, 2009

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3