Deutsch v. Clark et al

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING 68 Motion for Sanctions. Harrington is awarded $32,962.50 in fees, and Herring & Panzer, L.L.P. is awarded $136,122.50 in fees and $6,588.78 in expenses. Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix) (td)

Appendix:
List of Sanctioned Statements and Corresponding Docket Filings 1

(1)

Harrington used “racial slurs against Plaintiff’s counsel.” 2 [Seven Filings]

(2)

Harrington believes it is “acceptable to refer to Hispanics as toads, sapos, snitches,
and South American Pieces of Shit.” 3 [Five Filings]

(3)

Stating that Harrington’s alleged use of the term sapo is “the same racist and twisted
logic that refers to people of color as monkey’s, gorillas, rats, and roaches.” 4 [Five
Filings]

(4)

Harrington used “racist and anti–Semitic terms against minorities (and then claim[ed]
it is okay because he is married to a minority).” 5 [Six Filings]

(5)

Harrington “appears to have a medical issue.” 6 [Six Filings]

(6)

If Harrington “is hearing angels, he needs medical treatment immediately.” 7 [Six
Filings]

(7)

Harrington “is in a fugue state and doesn’t really know what is going on.” 8 [Six
Filings]

(8)

Harrington has made “continual comments” that “show a high level of hostility,
racism, and hatred to people who are not the majority and white like Jim
Harrington.” 9 [Two Filings]

(9)

Harrington “treats Hispanics like servants and ‘noble savages’ that need his
superlative help and guidance.” 10 [Two Filings]

(10)

“Mr. Harrington knows that Mr. Rosales’s first job was washing dishes at a Mexican
Restaurant.” 11 [Three Filings]

1

This appendix is largely repurposed, after the Magistrate Court’s independent verification, from Defendants’
Exhibit 1 to their Consolidated Supplemental Memorandum [Dkt. #82-1] in Clark.
2
Dkt. #48 in Clark at 1, 3; Dkt. #28 in Chiwawa at 1, 3; Dkt. #11 in Draker at 1, 3; Dkt. #13 in Draker at 2; Dkt.
#67 in Henry at 1, 3; Dkt. #20 in Phil’s Icehouse at 1, 3; Dkt. #37 in La Tierra at 1, 3.
3
Dkt. #65 in Clark at 2; Dkt. #33 in Draker at 2; Dkt. #80 in Henry at 2; Dkt. #24 in Phil’s Icehouse at 2; Dkt. #42
in La Tierra at 2.
4
Dkt. #65 in Clark at 2-3; Dkt. #33 in Draker at 2-3; Dkt. #80 in Henry at 2-3; Dkt. #24 in Phil’s Icehouse at 2-3;
Dkt. #42 in La Tierra at 2-3.
5
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 1; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 1; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 1; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 1; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 1; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 1.
6
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 1, 4; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 1, 4; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 1, 4; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 1, 4; Dkt.
#31 in Phil’s Icehouse at 1, 4; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 1, 4.
7
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 7; Dkt. # 35 in Chiwawa at 7; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 7; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 7; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 7; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 7.
8
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 8; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 8; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 8; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 8; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 8; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 8.
9
Dkt. #13 in Draker at 3; Dkt. #32 in La Tierra at 3.
10
Dkt. #13 in Draker at 3; Dkt. # 32 in La Tierra at 3.
11
Dkt. #13 in Draker at 1, 4; Dkt. #32 in La Tierra at 4; Dkt. #27 in Draker at 1, 3.

1

(11)

Harrington set depositions at Maudie’s restaurant—Defendant’s property in Draker
—as a “covert racist jab at Plaintiff’s counsel . . . .” 12

(12)

Harrington set depositions at Maudie’s restaurant “in order to make fun of Plaintiff
counsel’s ancestry and race (and in a Federal lawsuit regarding discrimination) . . .
[which] is both racist and inflammatory.” 13 [Two Filings]

(13)

Responding to Harrington noticing depositions at Maudie’s restaurant: “Does Jim
Harrington expect Mr. Rosales to mop the floors and bring him chips and salsa also?
If Mr. Rosales were African–American, would Jim Harrington order the Deposition
be held in a Church’s Fried Chicken? If Mr. Rosales were Asian, would Harrington
order the Deposition be held in a Chinese Buffet restaurant?” 14 [Three Filings]

(14)

Harrington “asked Plaintiff if he was a cross–dresser.” 15

(15)

Because “Hispanic employees work for [Mr. Harrington], he sees it as perfectly
acceptable to demean Hispanics and used racist language towards Mexican–
Americans.” 16

(16)

Harrington is representing Defendants, and others being sued by Deustch, only “to
spite [Mr. Rosales] the Plaintiff’s counsel, frustrate the administration of justice, and
make a mockery of the U.S. Court system.” 17 [Five Filings]

(17)

Harrington has violated Western District Local Rules, the Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct, and standing court orders. 18 [Six Filings]

(18)

Stating that Harrington called Rosales el sapo because of Rosales’ medical
condition. 19 [Six Filings]

(19)

Harrington “has engaged in extreme behavior.” 20 [Six Filings]

(20)

Harrington engaged in a “strange and bizarre rant.” 21 [Six Filings]

(21)

Harrington “stormed out of a deposition (when he realized his client’s case was
falling apart) and took documents that were already admitted into the record.” 22 [Six
Filings

12

Dkt. #27 in Draker at 1.
Dkt. #13 in Draker at 4; Dkt. #32 in La Tierra at 4.
14
Dkt. #13 in Draker at 4; Dkt. #27 in Draker at 3; Dkt. #32 in La Tierra at 4; Dkt. #27 in Draker at 3.
15
Dkt. #13 in Draker at 3.
16
Dkt. #32 in La Tierra at 4.
17
Dkt. #65 in Clark at 5; Dkt. #33 in Draker at 5; Dkt. #80 in Henry at 5; Dkt. #24 in Phil’s Icehouse at 5; Dkt. #42
in La Tierra at 5.
18
Dkt. #48 in Clark at 2–4; Dkt. #28 in Chiwawa at 2-4; Dkt. #13 in Draker at 2-3, 5; Dkt. #11 in Draker at 2-4;
Dkt. #27 in Draker at 3; Dkt. #67 in Henry at 2-4.
19
Dkt. #48 in Clark at 3; Dkt. #28 in Chiwawa at 3; Dkt. #11 in Draker at 3-4; Dkt. #67 in Henry at 3-4; Dkt. #20 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 3; Dkt. #37 in La Tierra at 3.
20
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 1; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 1; Dkt. # 39 in Draker at 1; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 1; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 1; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 1.
21
Dkt. # 70 in Clark at 4; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 4; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 4; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 4; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 4; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 4.
13

2

(22)

Harrington “refused to provide new deposition dates in violation of the Court’s
order.” 23 [Six Filings]

(23)

Harrington was “improperly using the resources and personnel” of the Texas Civil
Rights Project. 24 [Six Filings]

(24)

Mr. Harrington is a “lying draft dodger.” 25

(25)

“[C]alling [Mr. Harington] a coward would be generous.” 26

(26)

Harrington has been “stalking Plaintiff’s counsel.” 27 [Four filings]

(27)

Harrington “threatened Plaintiff’s counsel’s life.” 28 [Two filings]

(28)

Harrington stole and “destroyed” evidence “due to the fact that the exhibit was
extremely adverse to [Mr. Harrington’s clients’] case.” 29

(29)

Harrington was guilty of “witness tampering” and violations of Texas Penal Code
§ 36.05(2) and § 36.05(5). 30

22

Dkt. #70 in Clark at 5; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 5; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 5; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 5; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 5; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 5.
23
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 6; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 6; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 6; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 6; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 6; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 6.
24
Dkt. #70 in Clark at 7; Dkt. #35 in Chiwawa at 7; Dkt. #39 in Draker at 7; Dkt. #88 in Henry at 7; Dkt. #31 in
Phil’s Icehouse at 7; Dkt. #52 in La Tierra at 7.
25
See, e.g., Deutsch v. Chiwawa, Inc., 1:15–CV–1238–LY, Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. # 31) at 6 (showing February 1, 2016 email from Mr. Rosales to Mr. Harrington in
which Mr. Rosales calls Mr. Harrington a “lying draft dodger”).
26
E.g., Dkt. #31 in Chiwawa at 6.
27
Dkt. #25 in Clark at 1; Dkt. #15 in Clark at 7; May 26, 2016 Hearing on Motion for Adverse Inference, Motion
for Sanctions, and Motion to Disqualify Counsel in Clark et al.; Rosales v. Harrington, C–1–CV–16–004470, In
County Court at Law No. 4, Travis County, Texas, Application for Protective Order Under Article 7A, p. 2.
28
Dkt. #15 in Clark at 7, 9-10; May 26, 2016 Hearing on Motion for Adverse Inference, Motion for Sanctions, and
Motion to Disqualify Counsel in Clark et al.
29
Dkt. #15 in Clark at 9.
30
Rosales v. Harrington, C–1–CV–16–004470, In County Court at Law No. 4, Travis County, Texas, Application
for Protective Order Under Article 7A, p. 3.

3