King J.D. et al v. Rumbaugh

Filing 31

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 27 Motion for Sanctions by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiffs

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D., et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No. C17-00031-RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS

v.
HON. STANLEY J. RUMBAUGH,

14
Defendant.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Christopher King, J.D., Wally Brown,

17

and Chris Nubbe’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Dkt. #27. The Court has determined that it

18

can rule on this Motion without further briefing.

19
20

On January 17, 2017, Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. Dkt. #3. Plaintiffs filed

21

a response brief on January 31, 2017. Dkt. #9. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion,

22

dismissed Plaintiff’s claims, and closed this case on April 3, 2017. Dkt. #24. Plaintiffs have

23

subsequently moved for relief under Rule 59(e), and this Motion is pending before the Court.

24

Dkt. #26.

25
26
27
28

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) provides in full:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other
paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being
presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2)
the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after
a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence
or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a
lack of information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). A district court is vested with discretion whether or not to enter Rule 11
sanctions. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L.

11
12

Ed. 2d 359 (1990). “Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy, one to be exercised with extreme

13

caution.” Operating Eng’rs. Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1345 (9th Cir. 1988).

14

Plaintiffs’ Motion argues that certain factual contentions contained in Defendant’s previous

15

filings were presented for an improper purpose and/or do not have evidentiary support as

16

required by Rule 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(3). See Dkt. #27 at 4.

17
18

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Rule 11 Motion essentially reargues the merits. The

19

Court has already reviewed the underlying facts in dismissing this case and agreed with

20

Defendant’s arguments. See Dkt. #24. Defendant’s representations to the Court had sufficient

21

evidentiary support and were not presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass

22
23

Plaintiffs. To the contrary, the record in this case is full of examples of harassment flowing in

24

the opposite direction. See, e.g., Dkt. #24 at 5 n.2. Defendant’s representations do not

25

constitute “lies” based on Plaintiffs alleged evidence, or otherwise rise to the level of conduct

26

that is sanctionable under Rule 11.

27

Plaintiffs’ requested relief, that Defendant retract

arguments and statements, convinces the Court that Plaintiff’s Motion is really being brought to

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - 2

1
2
3
4

relitigate the case.

This case is closed—the Court will not order Defendant to “retract”

arguments or statements, nor is it clear that Rule 11 is an appropriate basis for such relief.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for

5
6

Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. #27) is DENIED.

7
8
9
10
11
12

DATED this 9 day of May, 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - 3