Isaacson v. Isaacson

Filing 80

ORDER denying 63 defendant's motion for rule 11 sanctions (as more fully set out in the Order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 8/25/2011. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARCIE ISAACSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOE B. ISAACSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-10-678-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions, filed June 3, 2011. On June
22, 2011, plaintiff filed her response. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its
determination.
Defendant moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, to order
appropriate sanctions against plaintiff. Specifically, defendant asserts plaintiff failed to correctly
file her motion for new trial.1
Rule 11(c) provides, in pertinent part:
Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to
respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the
court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm,
or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1).
Defendant contends plaintiff’s motion for new trial was improper: (1) because no trial was
conducted in this case from which a motion for new trial could be argued; (2) because summary

1

Plaintiff’s motion for new trial was denied by the Court on July 28, 2011.
1

judgment is not a substitute for trial; and (3) the purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate trials
in which no issues of fact exist. Defendant also contends that upon making this argument in his
response to plaintiff’s motion for new trial, plaintiff failed to change the bases for her motion for
new trial. Defendant contends plaintiff’s request for new trial under both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(e)
caused unnecessary delay and needlessly increased the cost of litigation by creating an issue of
possible reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(3). Finally, defendant contends plaintiff’s motion for new
trial was based on facts that either were raised or could have been raised in plaintiff’s response to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment and, thus, were waived under Rule 56(f).
Plaintiff contends defendant’s motion for sanctions is but a frivolous attempt to distract the
Court from reviewing its Order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff
contends she is entitled to post judgment relief under provisions of both Rule 59 and Rule 60 and
thus should not be sanctioned. Plaintiff also continues to make the argument that she is entitled to
post judgment relief because defendant made false and misleading representations to the Court in
his motion for summary judgment that resulted in the Court granting defendant’s motion.
Specifically, plaintiff contends defendant misled the Court as to the installation of his home
telephone and the bases for his tape recording telephone conversations between his minor children
and plaintiff. Plaintiff alternatively requests the Court reconsider the judgment entered in favor of
defendant.
Rule 59(a) provides:
New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
(a)

In General.
Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all
or some of the issues-and to any party-as follows:

2

(A)

(B)

(e)

after a jury trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore
been granted in an action at law in federal court; or
after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has
heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.

*
*
*
Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e).
Rule 60 (b) provides:
Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or
Proceeding. On Motion and just terms, the court may relieve
a party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2)

newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3)

fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;

(4)

the judgment is void;

(5)

the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively
is no longer equitable; or

(6)

any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiff did not
violate Rule 11 by predicating her motion for new trial upon Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59

3

and 60. The Court also finds plaintiff’s submissions relative to the bases for her motion for new
trial filed in this matter though not persuasive were not submitted unnecessarily or caused a needless
increase of litigation costs.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions [docket no. 63].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2011.

4