Catsiapis v. Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 6 Motion for Sanctions, in the amount of $750.00. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 12/8/2016. (McBride, Katherine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------x
GEORGE CATSIAPIS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
16 CV 2998 (ILG)

PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP,
TASO PARDALIS and
JOSEPH D. NOHAVICKA,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------x
GLASSER, United States District Judge:
The defendants moved this Court for an Order that would sanction the plaintiff’s
attorney, pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., for filing this action which did not confer
subject matter jurisdiction upon the Court. A “safe harbor” letter was sent to the
plaintiff’s attorney in accordance with the Rule. A response to that letter was not
received.
On September 15, 2016, the defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., Dkt. No. 5. Six days later, on
September 21, 2016, the defendants filed a letter motion addressed to Magistrate Judge
Scanlon, requesting her to grant attorneys’ fees and expenses as authorized by Rule 11.
Dkt. No. 6. The docket reflects no response to that request. What follows, however, is a
letter from the defendants, dated October 19, 2016, addressed to this Court, inexplicably
requesting that I fix a briefing schedule for the pending motions and bringing “to the
attention of the Court that defendants do not seek removal, but rather, dismissal of this
matter.” Dkt. No. 7. In a letter response dated October 21st, I wrote, “I don’t know why
or what you require me to schedule for. I assume you wish to pursue a default judgment

. . . and you are free to pursue the procedure,” for doing so. Dkt. No. 8.
On October 24th, the defendants requested the Clerk of Court to enter a default
judgment pursuant to Rule 55, Fed. R. Civ. P., Dkt. No. 9. No judgment of default was
entered. Received, however, was a letter from the plaintiff’s attorney, dated October
25th, requesting that I vacate Orders that I had not issued. Dkt. No. 10. The defendants’
letter response dated October 26th, is an inexplicable opposition to the plaintiff’s letter
and requests that I enter a default judgment in their favor for failure of the plaintiff to
respond to his motion to dismiss and for sanctions. Dkt. No. 11. In a Memorandum and
Order dated November 15, 2016, familiarity with which is assumed, I granted the motion
to dismiss the complaint and directed the plaintiff’s attorney to show cause on
December 7, 2016, why sanctions should not be imposed. Dkt. No. 12. He failed to
appear. A representative from the defendants’ office appeared. Defendants submitted a
Declaration in Support of a Bill of Costs setting forth time spent on actions taken by the
defendant at a lodestar of $400 per hour and requesting a sanction of $7,920 be
imposed upon plaintiff’s attorney.
Rule 11 was violated. This Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the claim
filed. The plaintiff’s attorney was duly notified of that and he ignored it. A motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) was all that was required. The requests for briefing
schedules and submissions for default described above were completely superfluous and
incomprehensible as were the nearly 20 hours claimed to have been spent on this
matter. A sanction is appropriate and is hereby imposed upon the plaintiff’s attorney in

2

the amount of $750, which he is hereby directed to pay to the defendants forthwith.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
December 8, 2016

/s/
I. Leo Glasser

3