Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-6075, SECTION: "T" (1).
March 7, 2008
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions filed by counsel for St. Tammany Parish. Rec. Doc. 65. The Motion requests that sanctions be imposed against counsel for the Plaintiff for filing a Motion for Default Judgment without following the proper procedures found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and because the Court allegedly did not have jurisdiction at the time the Motion was filed due to their being an immunity issue on interlocutory appeal. Rec. Doc. 65 at pp. 3-4. In sum, St. Tammany urges that sanctions should be imposed because the Motion for Default Judgment was frivolous. Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing that the Sanctions are inappropriate because it followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing its Motion for Default. Rec. Doc. 75.
This Court has discretion in determining whether or not Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed. Rule 11 authorizes the imposition of sanctions against a party as well as his attorney. See Skidmore Energy, Inc. v. KPMG, 455 F.3d 564, 567 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 524, 166 L.Ed.2d 371 (2006). Parties generally may not, however, be sanctioned for violating rule 11(b)(2), which makes the filing of legally frivolous pleadings sanctionable. Id. at 567-68. See also Bruno v. Starr, 247 Fed.Appx. 509, 510, 2007 WL 2693089, **1 (5th Cir. 2007). This Court has denied Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as being procedurally deficient; nevertheless, the Court does not find that sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES St. Tammany Parish's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Rec. Doc. 65.
For the reasons stated herein,
IT IS ORDERED that St. Tammany Parish's Motion for Sanctions, Rec. Doc. 65, is DENIED.