Edwards v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. et al, No. 2:2015cv03223 - Document 18 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 15 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF
Edwards v. Smitty's Supply, Inc. et al Doc. 18 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A W ILLIAMS D . ED W ARD S, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 15 -3 2 2 3 SMITTY’S SU PPLY, IN C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 5 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a m otion for sanctions filed by Plaintiff William D. Edwards. 1 Defendants Sm itty’s Supply, Inc.; Ed Sm ith; and J im m y Ellis (collectively, the “Defendants”) oppose the m otion. 2 The Court has considered these briefs an d the underlying circum stances and is prepared to rule. For the reasons that follow, the m otion for sanctions is D EN IED . Plaintiff William Edwards seeks sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the Defendants failed to properly serve Plaintiff with their m ost recent m otion to dism iss. 3 According to Plaintiff, the Defendants filed the m otion to dism iss on Decem ber 1, 20 15, but as of J anuary 7, 20 16, Plaintiff had yet to be served with a copy of the m otion. 4 Because the Defendants represented that Plaintiff had been served with a copy of the m otion, and because he purportedly was not served, Plaintiff contends the Defendants should be san ctioned for their conduct. Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court deny the Defendants’ m otion to dism iss and “im pose any other rem edy that the Court deem s proper to prevent this type of behavior in the future.”5 1 R. Doc. 15. R. Doc. 16. 3 R. Doc. 15 at 1– 2. 4 R. Doc. 15 at 1– 2. 5 R. Doc. 15 at 2. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com “A sanction under Rule 11 is an extraordinary rem edy, one to be exercised with extrem e caution.”6 The Court finds no reason to sanction the Defendants under the present circum stances. In this case, the Defendants electronically filed their m otion to dism iss into the CM/ ECF system and claim that, in addition to electronically filing the m otion, they m ailed a copy of the m otion to the Plaintiff. 7 Although Plaintiff alleges he never received service, 8 the record reflects that the Defendants attem pted to effect service on the Plaintiff. 9 Moreover, after realizing the Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the m otion, the Defendants voluntarily m oved to continue the m otion’s subm ission date, allowing the Plaintiff additional tim e to receive the m otion and prepare an opposition. 10 The Court finds that, in light of the foregoing, the Defendants’ conduct is not sanctionable under Rule 11. The Plaintiff’s m otion for sanctions is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 3 rd d ay o f Fe bru ary, 2 0 16 . _______ _____________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 6 Mark’s Airboats, Inc. v. Thibodaux, No. 6:13-0 274, 20 15 WL 14670 97, at *2 (W.D. La. Mar. 27, 20 15) (quotin g Sortium USA, LLC v. Hunger, No. 3:11-cv-1656-M, 20 14 WL 10 80 765, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 18 , 20 14)). 7 R. Doc. 16 at 1. 8 To ensure service is properly effected in the future, the Plaintiff m ay provide the Clerk of Court with an em ail address to which the Clerk will forward copies of all pleadings electronically filed into the record. In addition to em ail service, the Plaintiff will continue to be served with all pleadings via dom estic m ail. 9 See generally R. Doc. 16. 10 R. Doc. 16 at 1– 2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.