Smoky Mountain Knife Works, Inc v. Forward Motion Media, LLC (TV2)
Filing
47
ORDER denying without prejudice 12 defendant FMM's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on March 16, 2015. (AYB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
SMOKY MOUNTAIN KNIFE WORKS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORWARD MOTION MEDIA, LLC, and
ANDREW T. PARROTT,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 3:13-CV-448-TAV-CCS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This civil action is before the Court on the Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 12] filed by
defendant Forward Motion Media (“FMM”).
Defendant FMM moves the Court to
sanction plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
allegedly filing a fraudulent version of the written agreement at issue in this case.
Specifically, defendant asks the Court to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and award
defendant FMM costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff has responded in opposition to
defendant FMM’s motion [Doc. 15], stating that the version of the signed agreement it
filed is not fraudulent, but rather, truthfully represents the relevant agreement between the
parties. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny defendant FMM’s motion
without prejudice.
According to plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff entered into an “Internet
Marketing Agreement” with defendant FMM on or about September 14, 2011, in which
defendant FMM agreed to provide Internet marketing services to plaintiff from
September 2011 through September 2012 in exchange for a total of $830,000 [Doc. 1-1
p. 4–5]. Plaintiff claimed that defendant FMM breached the agreement by failing to
apply all of the money it received from plaintiff toward internet marketing services, and
by failing to provide an accounting of the funds it spent [Id. at p. 6]. In support of its
pleading, plaintiff attached a copy of the written agreement and incorporated it by
reference [Id. at p. 4, 10–19]. Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint [Doc. 30],
which inadvertently omitted a copy of the agreement [Doc. 35].
Defendant FMM answered the original complaint and amended complaint,
denying liability to plaintiff [Doc. 2; Doc. 31]. Although defendant FMM admitted that it
entered into an agreement with plaintiff, it denied that plaintiff filed a correct version of
the agreement with the original complaint [Doc. 2 p. 2; Doc. 31 p. 1–2]. In support of its
answers, defendant FMM attached the version of the agreement that it submitted was the
correct one [Doc. 2-1; Doc. 31-1]. Plaintiff has since moved the Court for leave to
replace the version of the agreement that it originally attached to its complaint with
defendant FMM’s preferred version, because it submits that the disputed language does
not affect its claims [Doc. 43].
There is one substantive difference between the two versions of the agreement. In
the version that plaintiff originally filed, the section regarding “Payment Schedule” reads:
The following is the agreed upon payment schedule to meet
all of the above goals, while adjusting for seasonality. Any
change to the following budget constitutes a change to the
services provided above. Please note any changes in the
associated fields. The Sep ’11 payment of $40,000 may be
used as a retainer, for future work, rather than an upfront
2
payment to cover search engine marketing deposits. If, at the
end of the contract period or end of the relationship, the
retainer has not been used, the client may request a refund of
the unused balance.
[Doc. 1-1 p. 18 (emphasis added)]. The agreement appears to be signed on behalf of
plaintiff by “Travis Ferguson” as the “C.O.O.” on September 14, 2011 [Doc. 1-1 p. 19].
There are two lines for a signature to be entered on behalf of defendant FMM: a “Rep
Signature” line and an “Approved by” line [Id.]. The “Rep Signature” line has been
signed but not dated. The “Approved by” line has not been signed or dated [Id.].
In contrast, the “Payment Schedule” provision in the version that defendant FMM
filed omits the last two sentences from plaintiff’s version:
The following is the agreed upon payment schedule to meet
all of the above goals, while adjusting for seasonality. Any
change to the following budget constitutes a change to the
services provided above. Please note any changes in the
associated fields.
[Doc. 2-1 p. 10; Doc. 31-1 p. 10]. Like plaintiff’s version, the agreement appears to be
signed on behalf of plaintiff by “Travis Ferguson” as “C.O.O.” on September 14, 2011
[Doc. 2-1 p. 11; Doc. 31-1 p. 11]. Also like plaintiff’s version, there are two lines for a
signature to be entered on behalf of defendant FMM: a “Rep Signature” line and an
“Approved by” line [Id.]. Unlike plaintiff’s version, the “Rep Signature” line has not
been signed or dated, but the “Approved by” line contains a signature that has been dated
September 16, 2011 [Id.].
Defendant FMM argues that plaintiff fraudulently added the last two sentences of
the “Payment Schedule” provision after it was signed by the parties on or about
3
September 16, 2011 [Doc. 12]. Defendant FMM submits that plaintiff made this change
in order to support its current claim for an accounting under the agreement [Id.].
Plaintiff responds that its claim for an accounting is not contingent on the
allegedly altered language of the agreement [Doc. 15 p. 1–3].
Therefore, plaintiff
submits that it would have no reason to alter the agreement in the manner that defendant
FMM alleges [Id. p. 3]. Plaintiff states that Travis Ferguson executed the agreement on
behalf of plaintiff, but that he is no longer employed by plaintiff [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff
further states that it found the version of the agreement that it filed with the Court in Mr.
Ferguson’s files. Plaintiff submits that its officers are unaware of any other version [Id.].
Defendant FMM has attached three affidavits in support of its Motion for
Sanctions [Doc. 13-3; Doc. 13-4; Doc. 13-5].
The first affidavit comes from Paul Pedersen, who is the sole owner and managing
member of defendant FMM [Doc. 13-3 p. 1]. Mr. Pedersen states that he was the only
person authorized in September 2011 to execute documents on behalf of defendant FMM,
and that his signature does not appear on the “Rep Signature” line of the version filed by
plaintiff [Id.]. He further states that the version filed by plaintiff is not the version that
defendant FMM executed with plaintiff in September 2011 [Id. at p. 1–2]. He avers that
at no time did defendant FMM make an agreement with plaintiff that is similar to the
extra language in plaintiff’s version of the agreement [Id. at p. 2].
The second affidavit is from defendant Andrew Parrott, an independent Internet
marketing specialist who assisted Mr. Pedersen in performing work for defendant FMM
4
[Doc. 13-4 p. 1]. Mr. Parrott states that his signature does not appear on the “Rep
Signature” line of the version of the agreement filed by plaintiff [Id.]. He further states
that the only other person working on behalf of defendant FMM with respect to plaintiff’s
account in September 2011 was Mr. Pedersen [Id. at p. 1–2]. He avers that at no time did
he make an agreement with plaintiff that is similar to the extra language in plaintiff’s
version [Id. at p. 2].
The third affidavit is from James MacDonald, counsel of record for defendant
FMM [Doc. 13-5 p. 1]. Mr. MacDonald states that he brought the alleged forgery to the
attention of plaintiff’s counsel via a letter on November 27, 2013 [Id.]. Mr. MacDonald
further states, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that more than
twenty-one days have elapsed without plaintiff withdrawing its version of the agreement
[Id. at p. 2].
After filing its motion for sanctions, defendant FMM filed an affidavit of Travis
Ferguson in connection with its first motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19-2]. In the
affidavit, Mr. Ferguson states that he was plaintiff’s Chief Operating Officer in
September 2011, and that he had the authority to execute the agreement at issue on behalf
of plaintiff [Id. at p. 1]. Mr. Ferguson further states that the signature purporting to be his
signature on plaintiff’s version of the agreement is not, in fact, his signature [Id. at 4].
Mr. Ferguson avers that the extra language in plaintiff’s version was not present in the
agreement signed by the parties in September 2011 [Id.]. He also avers that he did not
5
act on behalf of plaintiff to make an agreement with defendant FMM on September 14,
2011, that is similar to the extra language in plaintiff’s version [Id. at 5].
Plaintiff has attached three affidavits in support of its response to plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 15-1; Doc. 15-2; Doc. 15-3].
The first affidavit is from R. Alexander Johnson, counsel of record for plaintiff
[Doc. 15-1 p. 1]. Mr. Johnson recounts the procedural timeline of this case and describes
conversations he had with counsel of record for defendant FMM regarding the correct
version of the agreement, from plaintiff’s filing of the complaint in July 2013 to
defendant FMM’s filing of the Motion for Sanctions on June 18, 2014 [Id. at 1–3].
The second affidavit is from John Parker, the current Chief Financial Officer for
plaintiff [Doc. 15-2 p. 1]. Mr. Parker states that his predecessor was Travis Ferguson,
and that the version of the agreement that plaintiff filed with the Court was obtained from
Mr. Ferguson’s files [Id.]. Mr. Parker further states that he has conducted a careful
search of Mr. Ferguson’s files, and that plaintiff’s version of the agreement is the only
version he has been able to locate [Id.]. Mr. Parker avers that he did not amend, alter,
forge, or change the copy of the agreement that plaintiff filed with the Court [Id. at 2].
The third affidavit comes from Kevin Pipes, who is the owner of plaintiff [Doc.
15-3 p. 1]. Mr. Pipes states that the version of the agreement that plaintiff filed with the
Court is the only version that was in plaintiff’s possession at the time plaintiff filed its
lawsuit [Id.]. Mr. Pipes avers that he did not amend, alter, forge, or change the copy of
the agreement that plaintiff filed with the Court [Id.].
6
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court finds that a
genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether plaintiff knowingly filed an incorrect
document with the Court. A resolution of this case on its merits may affect the facts
underlying defendant FMM’s Motion for Sanctions. Therefore, the Court concludes that
defendant FMM’s Motion for Sanctions is premature, and the motion [Doc. 12] is
DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
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?