Freeze v. Gallagher

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ERIC STEPHEN FREEZE, CASE NO. C23-1135JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, et 13 al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is a motion for the court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff Eric 16 Stephen Freeze filed by Defendants Elizabeth Gallagher, Ann G. Freeze Revocable Trust, 17 Ronald L. Freeze Revocable Trust, James Massingale, and Angela Massingale 18 (collectively, the “Gallagher Defendants”). (Mot. (Dkt. # 37).1) Mr. Freeze opposes the 19 motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 41) (responding to both the motion for sanctions and the 20

21 1 The court exercises its discretion to decide the before the April 5, 2024 noting date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (directing district courts to administer the rules of procedure “to secure the just, 22 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). 1 Gallagher Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss).) The court has considered the 2 motion, the submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the

3 governing law. Being fully advised,2 the court DENIES the Gallagher Defendants’ 4 motion for sanctions. 5 The Gallagher Defendants ask the court to sanction Mr. Freeze pursuant to Federal 6 Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) because, they assert, this case is “baseless, meritless, 7 and . . . filed in bad faith” in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). (Mot. at 8 1-3 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), (c)(1)).) Rule 11(c), however, imposes “stringent

9 notice and filing requirements on parties seeking sanctions.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 10 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 2005). In particular, Rule 11(c)(2) contains a “safe harbor” 11 provision, which requires “that any motion for sanctions . . . be served on the offending 12 party at least 21 days before the motion is filed with the court.” Islamic Shura Council of 13 S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). The Ninth

14 Circuit mandates “strict compliance with Rule 11’s safe harbor provision.” Id. Failure to 15 strictly comply with the safe harbor provision bars an award of sanctions under Rule 16 11(c). See Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1998). 17 Here, the Gallagher Defendants have not demonstrated that they served a copy of 18 their motion on Mr. Freeze before they filed their motion with the court. (See generally

19 Mot.) Because the Ninth Circuit does not authorize Rule 11 sanctions absent “strict 20

21 2 No party has requested oral argument (see Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1) and the court concludes that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the motions, see Local Rules W.D. 22 Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 compliance” with the safe harbor provision, see Islamic Shura Council, 757 F.3d at 872, 2 the court DENIES the Gallagher Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Dkt. # 37) without

3 prejudice to renewing the motion, if appropriate, in accordance with the Federal Rules of 4 Civil Procedure. 5 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2024. 6 A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22