Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al., No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court are, inter alia, the parties’ cross motions for sanctions, which are 17 fully briefed. (Docs. 37, 38, 44, 45, 48-50, 52.) For the following reasons, the Court will 18 deny Plaintiffs’ motion and grant Defendants’ motion in part. 19 Turning first to Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should 20 assess monetary sanctions against Defendants for allegedly failing to properly serve 21 Plaintiffs with their motion to dismiss documents. (Doc. 44.) To the contrary, Defendants 22 have produced evidence that they timely mailed all filings to Plaintiffs’ home address and, 23 in addition, emailed courtesy copies of all filings to Plaintiffs’ email addresses.1 (Doc. 48 24 at 6-7; Doc. 49.) Noting the motion’s frivolousness, failure to abide by Rule 11, and 25 intention to unreasonably multiply proceedings, Defendants request that the Court award 26 1 Consequently, the Court will also deny Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default 27 against Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. and Ms. Cook (Doc. 42). Even if the motion were procedurally proper, which it is not, its alleged justification relies wholly on allegations 28 that these defendants failed to properly serve Plaintiffs with their motion to dismiss documents. 1 Defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending the motion pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 1927. (Doc. 50.) The Court will grant Defendants’ request and deny Plaintiffs’ 3 motion. 4 Turning next to Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 37), Defendants first 5 request an order sanctioning Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) in the amount of 6 $10,000.2 Rule 11 “provides for the imposition of sanctions when a filing is frivolous, 7 legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation, or is brought for an improper purpose.” 8 Estate of Blue v. Cty. Of L.A., 120 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). 9 Defendants underscore that such sanctions are appropriate here because, in its December 10 4, 2020 dismissal order (Doc. 33), the Court found Plaintiffs’ lawsuit to be wholly frivolous 11 and the latest iteration in a series of frivolous lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs against 12 Defendants.3 Moreover, Defendants argue that such sanctions are necessary to preserve 13 the integrity of the judicial process and to deter future abuses by Plaintiffs, because 14 Plaintiffs have repeatedly filed redundant lawsuits against Defendants in an effort to harass 15 them and run up their costs, despite having received warnings, sanctions, and vexatious 16 litigant labels. The Court agrees that a $10,000 sanction is appropriate to preserve the 17 2 Defendants properly provided Plaintiffs with Rule 11 safe harbor notice on 18 October 19, 2020. (Doc. 38-3.) 3 Specifically, the Court held, 19 dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs’ claims are barred 20 by collateral estoppel and res judicata. This lawsuit is the most recent in a series of redundant lawsuits that Plaintiffs have filed 21 in both state and federal court. Particularly, following a collection lawsuit against Plaintiff Linda Jacobs brought by 22 Gurstel on behalf of Wheaton in which Wheaton prevailed, Plaintiffs have filed four federal and six state lawsuits against 23 Defendants all arising out of that collection dispute. Despite being named vexatious litigants in state court and being 24 sanctioned (Doc. 12-8), Plaintiffs persist in filing these frivolous lawsuits. Because all three counts in Plaintiffs’ 25 complaint either arise out of the same facts underlying the prior lawsuits (and are therefore barred by res judicata) or attempt 26 to relitigate an issue already decided in the prior suits (and are therefore barred by collateral estoppel), dismissal is 27 appropriate. 28 (Doc. 33 at 1-2.) 1 integrity of the judicial process and deter future bad behavior on the part of Plaintiffs. 2 Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for sanctions, insofar as it requests that 3 a $10,000 sanction be imposed on Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 11. 4 Defendants also request that the Court award them their attorneys’ fees and costs 5 incurred in defending against the lawsuit, in its entirety, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. 6 Beginning with the fee request, Defendants have not met their burden in showing that the 7 fees that they have requested are reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (providing for an award 8 of attorneys’ fees “reasonably incurred”). Although Defendants attached their invoices to 9 their motion (Doc. 38-1), they redacted the descriptions for each billing entry in their 10 entirety, citing the need to protect attorney-client confidentiality, which leaves the Court 11 to speculate as to whether the hours billed were reasonably expended. Surely, Defendants 12 could have described the tasks performed during each billing entry broadly without 13 compromising confidential attorney-client information. Instead, Defendants blacked out 14 each entry indiscriminately. They have therefore failed to prove the reasonableness of the 15 requested fees. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 438 n. 12 (1983) (“[C]ounsel, of 16 course, is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended. 17 But at least counsel should identify the general subject matter of his time expenditures.”) 18 Therefore, the Court will deny Defendants’ sanctions motion insofar as it requests 19 attorneys’ fees. Finally, Defendants request an award of $109.40 in costs stemming 20 primarily from printing and miscellaneous costs. (Doc. 38-2.) The Court concludes that 21 Defendants incurred these costs due to Plaintiffs’ efforts to unreasonably multiply the 22 proceedings and that such costs were reasonably expended. The Court will grant 23 Defendants’ requested cost award. 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 44) is DENIED. 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request for an award of attorneys’ 26 fees and costs incurred in defending against Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion pursuant to 28 27 U.S.C. § 1927 is granted. Defendants may file a motion that details the reasonable fees 28 and costs incurred in defending against Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion no later than February 1] 17, 2021. Plaintiffs may file a response addressing the reasonableness of the requested amount no later than February 22, 2021. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Doc. 37) is 4|| GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as described herein. Plaintiffs shall pay 5 || sanction to Defendants in the amount of $10,000. Plaintiffs must also pay Defendants’ 6|| costs in the amount of $109.40. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment 8 || (Doc. 42) is DENIED. 9 Dated this 11th day of February, 2021. 10 11 12 {Z, 13 _- Ae 14 Used States Dictrid Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-