United States of America v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University et al

Filing 401

ORDER denying 383 Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Jillian Weiss. Signed by Judge Robin J. Cauthron on 03/29/22. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DR. RACHEL TUDOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOUTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA
STATE UNIVERSITY and THE
REGIONAL UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendants,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-15-324-C

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on her claim, the Court entered judgment in
her favor. Defendants then appealed and Plaintiff cross-appealed. While the appeal was
pending, Plaintiff parted ways with two of the lawyers who represented her at trial – Ezra
Young and Brittany Novotny (“Young and Novotny”). Plaintiff continues to be represented
by attorney Jillian Weiss (Weiss). Collectively these attorneys have filed several Motions
primarily consisting of ad hominem attacks on each other. Now Young and Novotny have
filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 against Weiss.
In support of their Motion, Young and Novotny argue that Weiss has misrepresented
facts, engaged in perjury, and encouraged her client to engage in perjury. The majority of the
complaints raised by Young and Novotny center on issues related to the dispute between the
parties about who is entitled to receive attorneys’ fees for the work in this case. By separate
Order dated December 28, 2021 (Dkt. No. 391), the Court held that any attorneys’ fees
awarded to Plaintiff from Defendants are to be awarded to Plaintiff. The Court noted,
however, that Young and Novotny may be entitled to collect their attorneys’ fees directly from

Plaintiff. Young and Novotny argue that Weiss has misrepresented facts and/or law and must
be sanctioned for the misconduct. The Court has considered the instances referenced and
finds no sanctionable conduct. Each of the alleged misrepresentations raised by Young and
Novotny at most reveal Weiss advocating for a position by relying on an extension of existing
law. Such advocacy is not sanctionable under Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). As
for the other allegations raised by Young and Novotny, they raise nothing more than a different
view of the applicable facts. Consequently, there is no sanctionable wrongdoing.
While the Court has found no sanctionable conduct, that ruling does not mean the
conduct of either Weiss or Novotny and Young has been proper. Rather, it is evident that
personal animosity among counsel is so strong that these attorneys are more interested in
exacting some penalty against the other than in representing Plaintiff. Further similar actions
will result in sanctions up to and including disqualification to proceed further in this matter.
As set forth herein, the Motion for Sanctions Against Attorney Jillian Weiss (Dkt. No.
383) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of March 2022.

2