Smith v. Garcia
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 10 Motion to Vacate ; granting 11 Motion for Discovery; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss; the parties are hereby ordered to submit initial filings on the issue of attorney's fees and sanctions on or before 3/7/17. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 1/31/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEBORAH GARCIA,
)
)
Defendant,
)
)
and
)
)
MYVESTA FOUNDATION,
)
)
Defendant-Intervenor.
)
___________________________________)
BRADLEY SMITH,
C.A. No. 16-144 S
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before
the
Court
is
Defendant-Intervenor
Myvesta
Foundation’s (“Myvesta”) Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 10), Motion
for Disclosure (ECF No. 11), and Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13).
For the reasons set forth below, Myvesta’s motions are GRANTED.
I. Background
This
case
started
with
a
defamation
lawsuit
based
on
comments contained in two blog posts. (See Complaint, ECF No.
1.)
The
lawsuit
(“Plaintiff”)
was
against
purportedly
“Deborah
brought
Garcia”
by
“Bradley
(“Defendant”).
Smith”
Shortly
after that lawsuit was filed, the Court was presented with a
Consent Motion for Injunction and Final Judgment (ECF No. 2),
which the Court adopted and entered (ECF No. 3). The Consent
Judgment included an admission by Defendant that the comments at
issue constituted defamation and provided an Order that could be
submitted
to
various
internet
search
engines
so
that
the
defamatory statements would be removed. (Id.)
Several months later, Myvesta submitted a Motion for Leave
to Intervene. (ECF No. 4.) Myvesta operates the website on which
the allegedly defamatory comments had been posted. According to
Myvesta, the Consent Judgment was obtained through fraud on the
Court. Myvesta’s attorney attempted to contact Defendant by mail
at the address listed on the Consent Judgment submitted by the
parties, but the letter was returned as undeliverable. (Aff. ¶
2,
ECF
No.
9;
Ex.
2,
ECF
No.
9.)
Myvesta’s
attorney
also
contacted the attorney for the named Plaintiff in this case.
Plaintiff’s attorney “confirmed . . . both that [Plaintiff] had
not signed the papers submitted in this case and in his name and
that [Plaintiff] had not authorized the filing of this action in
his name.” (Aff. ¶ 3, ECF No. 9; Ex. 3, ECF No. 9.)
When these matters were brought to the Court’s attention,
the Court scheduled a hearing for November 16, 2016. (Notice of
Hearing
dated
11/01/2016.)
Both
Plaintiff
and
Defendant
were
absent from that hearing. Plaintiff’s attorney explained that
Plaintiff would not be attending because “it is not his case”
and because he “can’t spend the money and time to fly across the
country
on
a
case
he
did
not file.”
2
(Ex. 3,
ECF
No.
9.)
Defendant provided no explanation for her absence. After hearing
the motion, the Court directed the file be sent to the United
States Attorney for investigation.
II. Motion to Vacate
Myvesta
Judgment.
has
(ECF
submitted
No.
10.)
a
Motion
Relief
from
to
a
Vacate
final
the
Consent
judgment
is
appropriate where the order at issue was procured through fraud
or misrepresentation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). In light of the
evidence that the Consent Judgment was procured through fraud on
the
Court,
including
the
misrepresentation
that
the
named
Plaintiff instigated the action, Myvesta’s Motion to Vacate is
GRANTED.
III. Motion for Disclosure
Myvesta requests that the Clerk of Court provide a copy of
the check submitted as payment for the filing fee in this case
in order to assist Myvesta in determining what person or persons
should be held responsible for this fraud on the Court. (ECF No.
11.)
Myvesta’s Motion for Disclosure is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court
is
hereby
directed
to
provide
a
copy
of
the
check
submitted as payment for the filing fee in this case.
IV. Motion to Dismiss
Myvesta has submitted a Motion to Dismiss, claiming the
Court
lacks
subject
matter
jurisdiction
and
that
Plaintiff
failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. (ECF No.
13.) “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject3
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Having reviewed the Complaint and the evidence
submitted,
subject
the
Court
matter
agrees
with
jurisdiction
Myvesta
and
that
dismissal
there
is
is
no
therefore
appropriate.
On the face of the Complaint, the only possible basis for
subject
matter
Complaint
jurisdiction
¶¶
jurisdiction,
1-7,
“there
ECF
is
No.
must
diversity
1.)
be
To
complete
jurisdiction.
establish
diversity
(See
diversity
among
the
parties . . . .” Am. Fiber & Finishing, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare
Grp., LP, 362 F.3d 136, 139 (1st Cir. 2004). “Generally, once
challenged, the party invoking subject matter jurisdiction . . .
has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the
facts supporting” diversity among the parties. Bank One, Texas,
N.A.
v.
Montle,
964
F.2d
48,
50
(1st
Cir.
1992)
(internal
quotation omitted). In this case, the named Plaintiff has failed
to
provide
any
evidence
supporting
a
finding
of
diversity
jurisdiction and has refused to even appear before the Court.
Moreover, according to the affidavit presented by Myvesta, the
named Plaintiff is claiming to have never filed this action in
the
first
place.
Under
these
circumstances,
and
without
any
evidence to establish diversity jurisdiction, dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate. Myvesta’s Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED.
4
V. Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees
In conjunction with Myvesta’s Motion to Dismiss, Myvesta
has requested that the Court establish a briefing schedule on
the
issue
of
attorney’s
fees
and
sanctions.
(See
Motion
to
Dismiss 16-18, ECF No. 13-1.) The Court agrees that attorney’s
fees may be appropriate in this case. Additionally, the Court
has inherent authority to “award sanctions upon finding that a
party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for
oppressive reasons.” F.A.C., Inc. v. Cooperativa De Seguros De
Vida De Puerto Rico, 563 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation
omitted).
The
Court
directs
argument on what, if any, attorney’s
appropriate
Federal
apparent
in
Rules
this
of
confusion
case
Civil
in
fees
accordance
Procedure.
regarding
the
the
parties
submit
and sanctions
with
Rule
Additionally,
identity
to
of
the
54
are
of
the
given
the
person
who
filed both the Complaint and the Consent Judgment, the parties
are
further
directed
to
submit
argument
on
who
should
be
responsible for paying those attorney’s fees.
VI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant-Intervenor’s Motion to
Vacate (ECF No. 10), Motion for Disclosure (ECF No. 11), and
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court
will provide a copy of the check submitted as payment for the
filing fee in this case to Defendant-Intervenor. Lastly, the
5
parties are
hereby
ORDERED to submit
initial filings
on the
issue of attorney’s fees and sanctions within thirty (30) days.
No final judgment shall enter until all matters are disposed of.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: January 31, 2017
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?