Bakhtiari v. Al-Khaledy et al

Filing 145

MEMORANDUM: The Court will deny both of plaintiff's motion. Further, the Court will order plaintiff to pay defendant $363,535.59 in monetary sanctions. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/21/2014. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

ALIREZA BAKHTIARI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PATRICIA LEADER FRANK
AL-KHALEDY, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11-CV-971 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff brought this case against defendants in 2011. As described more fully in earlier
memorandums, plaintiff’s allegations against the defendants were entirely fabricated. Plaintiff
admitted to the deception during criminal proceedings that stemmed from plaintiff’s emailed
threats to defense counsel in this case.1 Plaintiff pleaded guilty and is serving time in prison as a
consequence.
This matter was stayed while plaintiff’s criminal proceedings took place. The Court
lifted the stay on May 28, 2013. Because there had been no activity in this matter since the stay
was lifted, on August 20, 2013, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (#125). Plaintiff did not respond. In the
meantime, on August 22, 2013, defendant Missouri College filed a motion for sanctions (#126).
Plaintiff did not response to the motion for sanctions. As discussed more fully in the Court’s
order granting that motion for sanctions, the defendants are entitled to monetary sanctions in this

1

United States of America v. Alireza Bakhtiari, a.k.a. Al Bakt, Case No.
4:12-cr-00097-ERW, Doc. No. 88.

matter because (1) plaintiff filed this action knowing it was false, and he admitted to that during
his criminal proceedings,2 (2) plaintiff flouted the Court’s December 30, 2011 Order (#70) to
produce his electronic devices for imaging, and then lied to the Court that he had complied, and
(3) plaintiff admitted during his guilty plea that he made email threats against defense counsel
and defense counsel’s family that were made to obstruct and intimidate defense counsel.
The Court ordered that plaintiff’s case be dismissed in accordance with its August 20,
2013 Order (#125), Federal Rule Civil Procedure 41(b), and Rule 37(b)(2). The Court also
indicated that it would order the plaintiff to pay defendant Missouri College’s reasonable
expenses, including attorneys’ fees.
Defendant Missouri College’s Sealed Response to the Court dated September 11, 2013
(#143) submits that defendant is entitled to $348,601.95 for its attorneys’ fees and $14,933.64 in
costs. Defendant’s fees and costs are well-documented. Shortly after Missouri College filed its
Response, however, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Set Aside Judgment and to Impose Sanctions
Against Defense Attorneys for Lack of Candor and Misconduct” (#134) and a “Motion for Stay
of the Proceedings and Appointment of Counsel” (#136).
In his first motion, plaintiff accuses defense counsel of failing to inform him of
defendant’s motion for sanctions. Defense counsel remains firm that it sent defendant a service
copy of the motion, but defendant charitably suggests that the Court could allow plaintiff time to
respond to the motion.

2

United States of America v. Alireza Bakhtiari, a.k.a. Al Bakt, Case No.
4:12-cr-00097-ERW, Doc. No. 88.
2

Plaintiff’s second motion appears to be a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause
(#125). He requests a stay of the proceedings in this matter as well as appointment of counsel.
He states he is under a “present danger of self-incrimination” and otherwise unable to litigate his
case, despite the fact that he has filed and is litigating two other matters in federal court.3 The.
Plaintiff also suggests that the plea agreement in his criminal prosecution (United States of
America v. Alireza Bakhtiari, a.k.a. Al Bakt, Case No. 4:12-cr-00097-ERW, Doc. No. 88.)
somehow states that a former defendant in this case, Patricia Leader, was in fact responsible for
forging the letters at issue. The second motion is riddled with misstatements and false
accusations against defense counsel in this case. The Court will not go into them here. Plaintiff
admitted that this lawsuit was based on false allegations, and therefore this case should have been
dismissed by plaintiff long ago.
The Court will deny both of plaintiff’s motion. Further, the Court will order plaintiff to
pay defendant $363,535.59 in monetary sanctions.

Dated this 21st day of January, 2014.
_____________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

See Bakhtiari v. Walton, No. 13-906-JPG (S.D. Ill.) and Bakhtiari v. United States, No.
4:13-cv-1344-ERW (E.D. Mo.).
3