Mellen v. Salt Lake City et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 33 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/1/2018. (eat)
_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
TRENTON DALE MELLEN,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
vs.
Case No. 2:17CV00493DAK
SALT LAKE CITY, et al.,
Judge Dale A. Kimball
Defendant,
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. The motion
is fully briefed, and the court concludes that a hearing on the motion would not aid in the court’s
decision of the motion.
Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on the grounds that all of the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are
devoid of merit and frivolous. Under Rule 11, the signer of a pleading certifies that she has
“conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual and legal basis for the filing, and that the
substance of the pleading is well grounded in fact and law.” Coffey v. Healthtrust, Inc., 955 F.2d
1388, 1393 (10th Cir. 1992). “A good faith belief in the merit of an argument is not sufficient;
the attorney’s belief must also be in accord with what a reasonable, competent attorney would
believe under the circumstances.” White v. General Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 675, 680 (10th Cir.
1990).
While the court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that
Plaintiff’s claims should fall within an exception to the general rule of absolute immunity or that
the court should consider whether a new exception should be created for situations such as
Plaintiffs. The court disagrees that Plaintiff’s claims fell within an exception to the absolute
immunity doctrine and that the court should create a new exception. However, the court does not
believe that it was objectively frivolous to seek the court’s ruling on the issue. In addition, the
court believes there was a tenuous factual basis for asserting that a municipal policy may have
been at issue, even if the court disagrees with whether such a factual claim could state a claim
under § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims are not of the type requiring sanctions under Rule 11.
Furthermore, the court routinely deals with cases of whether municipalities and/or their
officials should be named in certain capacities as defendants. Duplicative claims against these
types of entities in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases is commonplace and not the basis for Rule 11
sanctions.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is DENIED.
DATED this 1st day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
Dale A. Kimball,
United States District Judge
2
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?