Opinion
EP-04-CA-452-DB.
April 17, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On this day, the Court considered Defendant The Apollo Group, Inc. and Defendant Snell Wilmer L.L.P.'s (collectively, "Defendants") "Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions," filed on February 3, 2006, as well as their "Application For Attorney's Fees," filed on January 20, 2006. On January 24, 2006, Relator Leeland O. White filed a "Motion To Deny Pro Se Defendant's Jeanne Collins, James Mackie And Gerald Giordano Attorney's Fees With Supporting Evidence [ sic]" ("Relator's Motion"). On February 7, 2006, Relator filed "Objections to Defendant's [ sic] Rule 11 Sanctions." Defendants, in turn, filed a "Reply In Support Of Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions," on February 16, 2006. After due consideration, the Court grants Defendants' Motion, denies Relator's, and overrules Relator's Objections.
The "Application For Attorney's Fees" indicates that Defendants intended to file their "Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions," concurrently.
BACKGROUND
The instant cause is a qui tam case brought under the False Claims Act. 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 3729, et seq. On December 9, 2004, Relator filed a pro se "Petition And Affidavit For Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis," which the Court granted by Order entered January 7, 2005. The January 7 Order also instructed the Clerk of the Court to file Relator's " Qui Tam Federal False Claims Act Complaint Pursuant To Title 31 USC § 3729/3730/3731 [ sic]" ("Complaint") under seal. On April 18, 2005, Plaintiff United States filed an "Election To Decline Intervention," notifying the Court that it declined to be a part of this litigation. As a result, on April 20, 2005, the Court entered an Order instructing the Clerk of the Court to unseal Plaintiff's complaint and to effectuate service on Defendants within 120 days. Defendants were served on July 27, 2005. On August 15, 2005, Defendants served Plaintiff with their "Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions," through which Defendants suggest that Relator's Complaint is frivolous. On August 17, 2005, Defendants filed a "Joint Motion To Dismiss," which the Court granted by Order entered on January 6, 2006. On January 6, 2006, the Court also entered Final Judgment in Defendants' favor. The instant Motions followed.DISCUSSION
Through their instant Motion, Defendants request that the Court issue Rule 11 Sanctions against Relator for filing this lawsuit. Through his Objections, Relator challenges the timeliness of Defendants' Motion. Relator insists that once the Final Judgment was entered, Defendants had 14 days in which to request attorney's fees. Though he fails to cite any authority, the Court presumes Relator relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), which indeed establishes a 14-day deadline in which to file a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2). Here, however, Defendants do not seek attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2). They seek attorney's fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Rule 11 prescribes no time period in which to file a motion for sanctions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11. While Rule 11 dictates that a party must serve the sanctions motion on the putative offender before filing the motion with the court, and afford the putative offender 21 days to withdraw the offending document before filing the motion with the court, once the motion is filed, it is in the court's discretion to defer ruling on the sanctions motion until after the final resolution of the case. Rider v. City of Springfield, 109 F.3d 288, 295 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 11 advisory committee's note (1993 Amendments)). Indeed, where the Rule 11 motion is based on a pleading, "the sanctions issue under Rule 11 normally will be determined at the end of the litigation." See Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1556 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). Because Rule 11 imposes no time limit to file a sanctions motion, Defendants' Motion was timely filed. Additionally, because Defendants' Rule 11 Motion is based on Relator's Complaint, the Court determines that it was appropriate to file the Rule 11 Motion after the litigation's conclusion. See id. Moreover, it is worth noting that Defendants complied with Rule 11's stricture regarding serving the Motion before filing it with the Court, as they served Relator with their Rule 11 Motion on August 15, 2005. Thus, the Court concludes that Relator's assertion that Defendants' Motion is untimely is unfounded, and Relator's objection should be overruled.
Having determined that Defendants' Motion is timely, the Court turns to assessing its merits. Therein, Defendants' pray the Court impose Rule 11 sanctions on Relator. Defendants assert that Relator's Complaint was frivolous, as detailed by their "Motion To Dismiss," filed in the above-captioned cause on August 17, 2005. Defendants' further buttress their sanctions motion by directing the Court's attention to the previous lawsuit Relator filed against Defendant The Apollo Group, Inc., cause number EP-02-CV-273-DB. The Court agrees that the instant case is frivolous, that Relator proved himself to be a vexatious litigant through his conduct in the previous action, and elevated the level of abuse he inflicted on Defendants and the Court when he filed the instant action. Thus, having considered "whether the improper conduct was willful, or negligent; whether it was part of a pattern of activity, or an isolated event; whether it infected the entire pleading, or only one particular count or defense; whether the responsible person is trained in law; what amount, given the financial resources of the responsible person, is needed to deter that person from repitition . . .; what amount is needed to deter activity by other litigants," the Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Motion should be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11 advisory committee's note (1993 Amendments). Correspondingly, the Court determines that Relator's Motion should be denied. Finally, having considered the factors set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), rev'd on other grounds, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 109 S. Ct. 939, 103 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1989), the Court concludes that Relator should pay Defendants $46,882.00, for their costs and actual expenses incurred as a result of responding and defending against Relator's frivolous suit.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant The Apollo Group, Inc. and Defendant Snell Wilmer L.L.P.'s "Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions" is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant The Apollo Group, Inc. and Defendant Snell Wilmer L.L.P.'s "Application For Attorney's Fees" is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator Leeland O. White's "Motion To Deny Pro Se Defendant's Jeanne Collins, James Mackie And Gerald Giordano Attorney's Fees With Supporting Evidence [ sic]" is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator Leeland O. White's "Objections to Defendant's [ sic] Rule 11 Sanctions" are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator Leeland O. White PAY a Rule 11 sanction in the amount $46,882.00 to Defendant The Apollo Group, Inc., and judgment is accordingly entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Relator Leeland O. White is PROHIBITED from filing any civil action, in any federal court, against Defendant The Apollo Group, Inc., Defendant Snell Wilmer L.L.P, or any of their subsidiaries, partners, or employees, until he has paid the Rule 11 sanctions imposed by the Court through this Order, and through its August 10, 2004 Order, in cause number EP-02-CV-237-DB.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in any future civil action brought by Relator Leeland O. White anywhere in the United States, he shall FILE a "Notice of Prior Rule 11 Sanctions" concurrently with the filing of his initial pleading in such action, attaching as exhibits copies of: (A) this Court's May 27, 2004 Order, in cause number EP:02-CV-237-DB; and (B) this Order.