LAZER & LAZER v. AGRONOMED PHARMACEUTICALS LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDERED THAT: AGRONOMEDS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 25) IS GRANTED. LAZERS PARTIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 26) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT AGRONOMEDS RULE 11 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND ITS COUNSEL (ECF NO. 37) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 8/1/22. 8/1/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jaa, ) (Main Document 42 replaced on 8/1/2022) (jaa, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAZER & LAZER CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
AGRONOMED PHARMACEUTICALS :
LLC et al.,
:
Defendants.
:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 21-2253

ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2022, upon consideration of Plaintiff Lazer & Lazer
Corporation’s (“Lazer”) and Defendants Agronomed Holdings Inc., Agronomed Biologics LLC,
Agri-Kind LLC, and Agronomed Pharmaceuticals LLC’s (collectively, “Agronomed”) crossmotions for summary judgment, the parties’ responses thereto, and the parties’ replies thereon, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
•

Agronomed’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED.

•

Lazer’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Agronomed’s Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions Against
Plaintiff and its Counsel (ECF No. 37) is DENIED. 1

1

The day after the parties finished briefing their cross-motions for summary judgment,
Agronomed filed a motion for sanctions asserting that Lazer’s claims lacked legal and factual bases
and should have been withdrawn prior to this stage of the litigation. (ECF No. 37.) After
extensively reviewing the hundreds of pages that comprise the briefs and record in this action—
let alone the 443 additional pages that comprise Agronomed’s Rule 11 motion and the exhibits
thereto—the Court was disappointed to find that Agronomed’s Rule 11 motion does absolutely
nothing more than regurgitate the arguments it made in its summary judgment submissions. It is
as if Agronomed did not trust the Court enough to absorb its words when they were printed the
first time, which is demonstrably untrue since the Court, as Agronomed can see here, has resolved
this case entirely in its favor. The Court finds it particularly ironic that the crux of Agronomed’s
wholly frivolous Rule 11 motion attacks Lazer for filing frivolous claims itself. The Court chides

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Agronomed for filing this unnecessary motion, and full-throatedly denies it. See Moeck v. Pleasant
Valley Sch. Dist., 844 F.3d 387, 391 (3d Cir. 2016).