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 Plaintiff Eric Stephen Freeze’s “motion in limine to strike the 16 Defendants’[1] pleadings, motions, and advocacy for pleadings and motions for violation 17 of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,” which the court construes as a motion for 18 sanctions under Rule 11. (Mot. (Dkt. # 51).2) The court DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion. 19

20 1 Defendants are Elizabeth Gallagher, Ann G. Freeze Revocable Trust, Ronald L. Freeze Revocable Trust, James Massingale, Angela Massingale, and Jose T. Acuna. 21 2 The court exercises its discretion to decide the motion before the June 10, 2024 noting date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (directing district courts to administer the rules of procedure “to 22 secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). 1 Rule 11(c) imposes “stringent notice and filing requirements on parties seeking 2 sanctions.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 2005). In particular, as Mr.

3 Freeze acknowledges (see Memorandum (Dkt. # 52) at 2-3), Rule 11(c)(2) contains a 4 “safe harbor” provision, which requires “that any motion for sanctions . . . be served on 5 the offending party at least 21 days before the motion is filed with the court.” Islamic 6 Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 11(c)(2). The Ninth Circuit mandates “strict compliance with Rule 11’s safe harbor 8 provision.” Id. Failure to strictly comply with the safe harbor provision bars an award of

9 sanctions under Rule 11(c). See Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1998). 10 Here, Mr. Freeze has not demonstrated that he served a copy of his motion on 11 Defendants 21 days before he filed his motion with the court. (See generally Mot.; 12 Memorandum; Freeze Decl. (Dkt. # 53).) Because the Ninth Circuit does not authorize 13 Rule 11 sanctions absent “strict compliance” with the safe harbor provision, see Islamic

14 Shura Council, 757 F.3d at 872, the court DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion for sanctions 15 (Dkt. # 51) without prejudice to renewing the motion, if appropriate, in accordance with 16 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 17 Dated this 21st day of May, 2024. 18 A 19 20 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 21 22