SIMS v. VIACOM, INC.

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 01/31/2012. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES L. SIMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
VIACOM, INC.,
Defendant.

2: 11-cv-0675

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently pending before the Court is the MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, with brief in
support, filed by Defendant Viacom, Inc., and the MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF VIACOM INC. FOR SANCTIONS filed by
Plaintiff, Charles L. Sims.
This is the second lawsuit filed by Sims against Viacom. His first lawsuit was initially
filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and removed to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In that lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that
Viacom’s “Charm School” reality program was Plaintiff’s “Ghetto Fabulous” just under a
different name. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of express and implied contracts, fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and conversion. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Viacom on November 17, 2010.
Viacom argues that Sims filed the instant lawsuit when he knew or should have known
that his Complaint had no basis in law or fact. As relief, Viacom requests an Order granting its
motion for sanctions and award Defendant its expenses, including attorney’s fees.

1

A.

Rule 11 Sanctions
"The legal standard to be applied when evaluating conduct allegedly violative of Rule 11

is reasonableness under the circumstances." Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930
F.2d 277, 289 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing Bus. Guides v. Chromatic Commc'ns Enter., Inc., 498 U.S.
533, 546-47 (1991)). Reasonableness in the context of Rule 11, is "an objective knowledge or
belief at the time of the filing of the challenged paper that the claim was well-grounded in law
and fact." Id. Sanctions are appropriate only if "the filing of the Complaint constituted abusive
litigation or misuse of the court's process." Simmerman v. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 62 (3d Cir. 1994).
Under Rule 11(b)(2), both attorneys and pro se litigants are required to conduct a
reasonable inquiry into the legal underpinnings of their claims before signing a complaint. See
also 1993 Advisory Committee Note (“[Subdivision b requires] attorneys and pro se litigants to
conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts before signing pleadings, written motions,
and other documents, and prescribing sanctions for violation of these obligations. . . . The rule
requires litigants to ‘stop-and-think’ before initially making legal or factual contentions. . . .”)
While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff has filed two lawsuits against Viacom, both
alleging that Viacom “stole” Plaintiff’s “Ghetto Fabulous” idea, albeit under different legal
theories, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has abused the federal court system in a manner
that would warrant the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions as requested by Defendants.

B.

28 U.S.C. § 1927 Sanctions
Title 28, United States Code, section 1927 sets forth the federal rule discouraging costly,

vexatious proceedings. Specifically,
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United
States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case
2

unreasonably and veraciously may be required by the court to satisfy personally
the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of
such conduct.
28 U.S.C. § 1927.
In this case, Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 7, 2011, and Defendant moved to
dismiss the Complaint on October 18, 2011. By Memorandum Opinion and Order issued
contemporaneously with the filing of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court granted
the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety.
The proceedings in this case were few and short-lived. The Court is of the opinion that
Plaintiff’s actions did not rise to the level of unreasonable or vexatious conduct that multiplied
the proceedings in this case. Accordingly, § 1927 sanctions are not warranted in this case and
the Motion for Sanctions will be denied.
Conclusion
For the hereinabove stated reasons, the Motion for Sanctions will be denied. However,
Plaintiff is advised and warned that the denial of Defendant’s request is not an invitation to
continue to file lawsuits against this Defendant which arise out of the same underlying facts.
An appropriate Order follows.
McVerry, J.

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES L. SIMS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
VIACOM, INC.,
Defendant.

2: 11-cv-0675

ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2012, in accordance with the foregoing
Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS filed by Viacom, Inc., is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Terrence F. McVerry
United States District Court Judge
cc:

Darrell E. Williams, Esquire
8010 Woodcreek Drive
Bridgeville, PA 15017
Gayle C. Sproul, Esquire
Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz
Email: [e-mail]
Michael Berry, Esquire
Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz
Email: [e-mail]
Robert Penchina, Esquire
Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz
Email: [e-mail]

4