> L i
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX NO' 518372/2017l
`
`
`
`
`
`R«.C«.IV«.D \IYSCEF: 01/03/2018?1
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`
`
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01m2018 02:17 PM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO.
`113
`,
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`
`EXHIBIT “R”
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`:
`11/14
`: 51
`/ 2017
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`1 of 16
`Page
`
`UNITED
`STATES
`FOR THE DISTRICT
`
`COURT
`DISTRICT
`OF COLUMBIA
`
`Civil
`
`Action
`
`No.
`
`11-1919
`
`(ESH)
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`WADE ROBERTSON,
`
`.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM
`
`C. CARTINHOUR,
`
`JR.,
`
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`OPINION
`
`Yet
`
`again,
`
`this Court must
`
`confront
`
`the issue of sanctions
`
`arising
`
`from the litigation
`
`brought
`
`by Wade Robertson
`
`against
`
`Dr. William
`
`Cartinhour.
`
`This
`
`time
`
`the issue
`
`is whether
`
`to
`
`impose
`
`sanctions
`
`against
`
`Ty Clevenger
`
`for
`
`filing
`
`excessive
`
`and frivolous
`
`pleadings
`
`on behalf
`
`of
`
`his client, Wade Robertson,
`
`in violation
`
`of 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1927.
`
`To date,
`
`in related
`
`litigation,
`
`Clevenger
`
`has been
`
`sanctioned
`
`issued
`
`on October
`
`by the D.C.
`
`Circuit
`
`in orders
`
`14, 2010;
`
`by Chief
`
`Judge
`
`Lamberth
`
`in a related
`
`bankruptcy
`
`proceeding
`
`on April
`
`19 and December
`
`2012;2
`2012;
`
`2,
`
`and
`
`by Bankruptcy
`
`Judge
`
`Teel
`
`in a seventy-nine
`
`page
`
`opinion
`
`where
`
`Clevenger
`
`was
`
`fined
`
`for,
`
`inter
`
`alia,
`
`his "complete
`
`disregard
`
`for
`
`the facts
`
`and law in advancing
`
`. . . frivolous
`
`argument[s]
`
`[which]
`
`generated
`
`a staggering
`
`amount
`
`of work
`
`for
`
`the court,
`
`and has put Cartinhour
`
`and his
`
`attorney
`
`to the unnecessary
`
`burden
`
`of defending
`
`against
`
`frivolous
`
`arguments
`
`in this and other
`
`lorder
`7033
`district
`
`at 1, Robertson
`I, No.
`Cir. Oct.
`(D.C.
`19, 2010)
`court
`proceedings).
`
`10-7033
`
`(imposing
`
`Cir. Dec.
`(D.C.
`14, 2010);
`costs
`for unwarranted
`
`Order
`
`filing
`
`at 1, Robertson
`of
`fourth
`motion
`
`1, No.
`to stay
`
`10-
`
`Order,
`
`In I<e: KA.A,
`
`LI.P,
`
`No,
`
`12-cv-1574
`
`{D,D.C,
`
`Apr.
`
`2,
`
`2012).
`
`1
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`518372/2017
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`Page
`
`2 of 16
`
`courts."3
`
`If anything,
`
`Clevenger's
`
`conduct
`
`here
`
`is even more
`
`egregious
`
`than
`
`in these
`
`related
`
`cases.
`
`Therefore,
`
`this Court
`
`will
`
`grant
`
`the motion
`
`and sanction
`
`Clevenger
`
`for his vexatious
`
`and
`
`abusive
`
`litigation
`
`tactics
`
`in this
`
`case.4
`case.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This Court's
`
`involvement
`
`in Robertson's
`
`suits
`
`against
`
`Cartinhour
`
`dates
`
`back
`
`to 2009
`
`when Robertson
`
`unsuccessfully
`
`sued Cartinhour,
`
`which
`
`ultimately
`
`resulted
`
`in a jury
`
`verdict
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of Cartinhour
`
`for $7 million,
`
`including
`
`punitive
`
`damages
`
`of $3.5 million.
`
`The
`
`tortured
`
`history
`
`relating
`
`to that
`
`case,"Robertson
`
`I,"
`
`and the current
`
`one, which
`
`has been referred
`
`to as
`
`"Robertson
`
`II," was
`
`last
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in detail
`
`in a Memorandum
`
`Opinion
`
`dated March
`
`16, 2012.
`
`In
`
`this Court
`
`granted
`
`a motion
`
`to dismiss
`
`all counts,
`
`charges
`
`of RICO
`
`and
`
`that opinion,
`
`including
`
`state
`
`common
`
`law claims,
`
`that Clevenger
`
`initially
`
`brought
`
`on Robertson's
`
`behalf
`
`against
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`his attorneys
`
`("Kearney
`
`Attorneys"
`Attorneys")
`
`in Robertson
`
`Iand
`
`others
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New
`
`York.5
`
`Given
`
`the detailed
`
`recitation
`
`that
`
`appears
`
`in that Memorandum
`
`Opinion,
`
`the Court
`
`will
`
`only
`
`to summarize
`
`the relevant
`
`events
`
`that occurred
`
`subsequent
`
`to March
`
`16,
`
`2012.
`
`1. On April
`$7,249.00
`against
`a frivolous
`filed
`of Judge
`front
`
`2, 2012,
`Robertson
`
`bankruptcy
`Huvelle"6
`Ellen
`
`Lamberth
`
`imposed
`
`sanctions
`Judge
`Chief
`had
`that
`and Clevenger
`jointly,
`recognizing
`they
`litigation
`in this district
`case in an "attempt
`to stall
`were warranted
`that
`sanctions
`because
`and finding
`
`of
`
`in
`
`³In re W.A.R.
`2012).
`
`LLP,
`
`No.
`
`11-00044,
`
`2012
`
`Bankr.
`
`LEXIS
`
`1989,
`
`at *73
`
`(Bankr.
`
`D.D.C.
`
`May
`
`3,
`
`4Clevenger
`Russ, No.
`
`has also
`
`10-51125,
`
`been
`sanctioned
`recently
`LEXIS
`2012 U.S. App.
`
`for
`
`in the Fifth
`conduct
`similar
`(5th Cir.
`at *9-11
`June
`11101,
`
`Circuit.
`1, 2012)
`
`Erwin
`
`v.
`
`sSee Robertson
`
`II, No.
`
`I1-cv-1919,
`
`2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`35217,
`
`at
`
`*2 (D.D.C.
`
`Mar.
`
`16, 2012).
`
`6
`
`Order
`April
`
`at 1, In re: W.A.R.
`2, 2012).
`
`LLP, No.
`
`11-cv-1574
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`June 25, 2012)
`
`(describing
`
`Order
`
`of
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`(F ILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`:
`2017
`: 51
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`3 of 16
`Page
`
`of
`"the
`law...,"
`law . . .
`
`groundless
`."7
`
`nature
`
`of
`
`the [bankruptcy)
`
`appeal,
`
`unfounded
`
`whatsoever
`
`in the
`
`2. On April
`3, 2012,
`verdict
`$7 million
`the jury's
`"no meritorious
`argument
`
`on
`
`in an unpublished
`in Robertson
`land
`appeal."8
`appeal,"
`
`opinion,
`found
`
`affirmed
`the D.C. Circuit
`presented
`that Robertson
`
`3. On May
`Clevenger
`and fined
`Robertson
`in knowingly
`case."9
`case,"
`
`bankruptcy
`
`Judge
`4, 2012,
`Bankruptcy
`and Robertson
`$10,000
`each,
`and in bad faith
`advancing
`
`Teel
`
`granted
`
`finding
`frivolous
`
`for
`a motion
`"Clevenger
`that
`arguments
`
`sanctions
`joined
`in [the]
`
`4. On June
`review
`of
`
`12, 2012,
`this Court's
`
`Clevenger
`dismissal
`
`an appeal
`filed
`of Robertson
`
`II
`
`in the D.C. Circuit
`
`seeking
`
`Chief
`
`Judge
`"should
`
`Clevenger
`and
`ordered
`Lamberth
`5. On June 25, 2012,
`from further
`filings
`not be enjoined
`to show cause why
`Robertson
`they
`from the underlying
`further
`appeals
`[in the bankruptcy-related
`matters],
`filing
`court."
`new related matters
`in this
`district
`case, and from filing
`bankruptcy
`Lamberth
`to their
`objections
`responded
`Chief
`to their
`response
`Judge
`objections,
`that Robertson
`and Clevenger
`behavior
`on July
`the egregious
`25, 2012,
`listing
`by
`I."
`to the inception
`engaged
`in dating
`back
`of Robertson
`have
`I,
`
`In
`
`Understandably
`
`with
`
`this
`
`history
`
`as backdrop,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`has now moved
`
`for
`
`sanctions
`
`against
`
`Clevenger
`
`for
`
`attorney's
`
`fees and costs
`
`in Robertson
`
`H in the amount
`
`of
`
`$158,954.28.
`
`(See Cartinhour
`
`Mot.
`
`For Sanctions
`
`Against
`
`Ty Clevenger,
`
`Esq.
`
`("Cartinhour
`
`incurred
`
`7
`
`Order
`Memorandum
`Judge
`forth
`by Chief
`all of which
`motions,
`June
`25, 2012),
`
`In re: W.A.R.
`at 6-7,
`the April
`Lamberth,
`were
`denied.
`Order
`
`11-cv-1574
`2, 2012).
`(D.D.C.
`No.
`LLP,
`onslaught
`a veritable
`2, 2012 Order
`produced
`11-cy-1574
`LLP, No.
`In re: W.A.R.
`at 1-3,
`
`Apr.
`
`As
`
`set
`
`of
`(D.D.C.
`
`"Robertson
`
`I, No.
`
`11-7076,
`
`2012 U.S. App.
`
`LEXIS
`
`6674,
`
`at *3 (D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`9In re W.A.R.
`
`LLP,
`
`No.
`
`1 1-00044,
`
`2012 Bankr.
`
`LEXIS
`
`1989,
`
`at
`
`*4 (Bankr.
`
`D.D.C.
`
`May
`
`3, 2012).
`
`!°
`
`Order
`
`at 3,
`
`In re: W.A.R.
`
`LLP,
`
`No.
`
`11-cv-1574
`
`(D.D.C,
`
`June
`
`25, 2012).
`
`"Order
`
`at 1-3,
`
`In re: W.A.R.
`
`LLP,
`
`No.
`
`11-cv-1574
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`July
`
`25, 2012).
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`|FILED
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`:
`/ 2017
`12
`: 51
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCE'F
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`4 of 16
`Page
`
`Mot.").)¹2
`Mot."),)
`
`In his initial
`
`response,
`
`Clevenger
`
`sought
`
`extensive
`
`discovery
`
`relating
`
`to the bills
`
`of
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`New York
`
`attorneys
`
`("Yuzek
`
`Attorneys"
`Attorneys");
`
`challenged
`
`whether
`
`Cartinhour
`
`actually
`
`incurred
`
`these
`
`fees
`
`in this
`
`litigation
`
`and whether
`
`the Yuzek
`
`Attorneys
`
`were
`
`acting
`
`under
`
`the
`
`direction
`
`of
`
`the Kearney
`
`Attorneys;
`
`and sought
`
`discovery
`
`from Cartinhour
`
`relating
`
`to whether
`
`he
`
`authorized
`
`the lawyers
`
`to act on his
`
`behalf.13
`
`Clevenger
`
`also sought
`
`90 days
`
`to oppose
`
`the
`
`sanctions
`
`motion."
`
`These motions
`
`were
`
`denied
`
`and finally,
`
`on May
`
`21, 2012,
`
`Clevenger
`
`filed
`
`his response,
`
`in which
`
`he characterizes
`
`the Kearney
`
`Attorneys
`
`as "not
`
`honest men
`
`nature"
`
`by
`
`(Clevenger's
`
`Response
`
`to Mot.
`
`for Sanctions
`
`Purportedly
`
`Filed
`
`on Behalf
`
`of Def. Cartinhour
`
`("Clevenger's
`
`their
`
`burden
`
`under
`
`28
`
`Opp'n")
`
`at 6) and argues
`
`that
`
`they
`
`have
`
`failed
`
`to meet
`
`U.S.C.
`
`§ 1927;
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`cannot
`
`award
`
`sanctions
`
`for events
`
`that
`
`occurred
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York;
`
`and that
`
`the motion
`
`is brought
`
`for an improper
`
`purpose.
`
`(Id.
`
`at 2, 4, 6.)
`
`These
`
`arguments
`
`are, as demonstrated
`
`below,
`
`utterly
`
`frivolous.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL
`
`STANDARD
`
`Cartinhour
`
`seeks
`
`sanctions
`
`under
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1927, which
`
`provides
`
`that an attorney
`
`who
`
`"so multiplies
`
`the proceedings
`
`in any
`
`case unreasonably
`
`and vexatiously
`
`may
`
`be required
`
`by the
`
`court
`
`to satisfy
`
`personally
`
`the excess
`
`costs,
`
`expenses,
`
`and
`
`attorneys'
`
`fees
`
`reasonably
`
`incurred
`
`because
`from Robertson
`seek attorney's
`not
`does
`fees
`12Cartinhour
`futile"
`$6.35 million
`the approximately
`he is unable
`to pay
`since
`in Robertson
`(Id.
`I.
`at 7.)
`
`verdict
`
`it would
`
`outstanding
`
`be "objectively
`from the jury
`
`13
`
`to Permit
`Mot.
`Act, Robertson
`
`Discovery,
`(D.D.C.
`
`II
`
`to Compel
`7, 2012)
`
`May
`
`Disclosure,
`("Clevenger's
`
`a Showing
`and to Compel
`of Authority
`Discovery"
`to Compel
`Discovery").
`Mot.
`
`to
`
`"
`
`Mot.
`Movant's
`Extension
`
`to Enlarge
`Intended
`Time"
`of Time").
`
`Time
`
`Opp'n,
`
`in Which
`to Respond
`Robertson
`II(D.D.C.
`
`in Which
`Apr.
`
`to Mot.,
`to Respond
`("Clevenger's
`27, 2012)
`
`of
`with Notice
`for an
`Mot.
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`|FILED
`:
`11/14
`/2017
`12 : 51
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372
`/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`Page
`5 of 16
`
`because
`
`of such
`
`conduct."
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1927.
`
`The purpose
`
`of § 1927
`
`is to allow
`
`the Court
`
`"to
`
`assess
`
`attorney's
`
`fees
`
`against
`
`an attorney
`
`who
`
`frustrates
`
`the progress
`
`ofjudicial
`
`proceedings."
`
`United
`
`States
`
`v. Wallace,
`
`964 F.2d
`
`1214,
`
`1218
`
`(D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`1992).
`
`The District
`
`of Columbia
`
`"'has
`
`not
`
`yet established
`
`whether
`
`the standard
`
`[for
`
`unreasonable
`
`and vexatious
`
`conduct
`
`under
`
`section
`
`1927}
`
`should
`
`be recklessness
`
`or
`
`the more
`
`stringent
`
`bad
`
`faith.'"
`
`Huthnance
`
`v. Dist.
`
`of Columbia,
`
`793 F. Supp.
`
`2d 177,
`
`181 (D.D.C.
`
`2011)
`
`(quoting
`
`LaPrade
`
`v. Kidder
`
`Peabody
`
`& Co.,
`
`146 F.3d
`
`899,
`
`905 (D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`1998))
`
`(some
`
`internal
`
`quotation
`
`marks
`
`omitted);
`
`see also Wallace,
`
`964 F.2d
`
`at 1218-19.
`
`However,
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`that,
`
`to
`
`warrant
`
`such
`
`a sanction,
`
`the attorney's
`
`conduct
`
`must
`
`be "at
`
`least
`
`'reckless.'"
`
`Id. at 1217.
`
`This
`
`means
`
`that
`
`there must
`
`be a "'conscious
`
`choice
`
`of a course
`
`either with
`
`knowledge
`
`of
`
`the
`
`of action,
`
`serious
`
`danger
`
`to others
`
`involved
`
`in it or with
`
`knowledge
`
`of
`
`facts which
`
`would
`
`disclose
`
`this
`
`danger
`
`to any
`
`reasonable
`
`man.'"
`
`Id.
`
`at 1220
`
`(quoting
`
`Restatement
`
`(Second)
`
`of Torts
`
`§ 500 cmt.
`
`g
`
`(1964)).
`
`That
`
`is,
`
`the movant
`
`must
`
`show
`
`that
`
`the attorney
`
`in question
`
`acted
`
`recklessly
`
`or
`
`deliberately
`
`"in the face
`
`of a known
`
`risk."
`
`Wallace,
`
`964 F.2d
`
`at 1220.
`
`According
`
`to Cartinhour,
`
`Clevenger
`
`has "multiplie[d]the
`
`proceedings
`
`...
`
`unreasonably
`
`and vexatiously"
`
`in two ways.
`
`Clevenger
`
`filed Robertson
`
`it was meritless
`
`First,
`
`IIknowing
`
`that
`
`and,
`
`second,
`
`he persisted
`
`in vigorously
`
`litigating
`
`Robertson
`
`IIeven
`
`after
`
`the jury's
`
`findings
`
`in
`
`Robertson
`
`Imade
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`the allegations
`
`in Robertson
`
`IIwere
`
`baseless.
`
`These
`
`acts, Cartinhour
`
`contends,
`
`show a "serious
`
`and 'studied
`
`disregard
`
`for
`
`an orderly
`
`judicial
`
`process'"
`
`which
`
`was
`
`intended
`
`to evade
`
`this Court's
`
`jurisdiction
`
`and increase
`
`the cost of
`
`litigation
`
`to Cartinhour.
`
`(Cartinhour
`
`Mot.
`
`at 3 (quoting
`
`Jensen
`
`v.Phillips
`
`Screw
`
`Company,
`
`546 F.3d
`
`59, 64 (1"
`
`Cir.
`
`2008)).)
`
`5
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`K INGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`/ 2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`518372/2017
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`7 of 16
`Page
`
`Court,
`
`he sought
`
`to enjoin
`
`litigation
`
`here
`
`by
`
`invoking
`
`the jurisdiction
`
`of both
`
`the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York
`
`and the Bankruptcy
`
`Court.
`
`Id. at
`
`*15-18.
`
`In particular,
`
`several months
`
`before
`
`trial was
`
`to commence
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, Clevenger
`
`filed
`
`a rambling,
`
`149-paragraph
`
`complaint
`
`that,
`
`although
`
`it was
`
`styled
`
`as a RICO
`
`action,
`
`centered
`
`on many
`
`of
`
`the same
`
`facts
`
`and
`
`claims
`
`as were
`
`presented
`
`in Robertson
`
`I. Cartinhour
`
`sought
`
`an anti-filing
`
`injunction
`
`against
`
`Robertson,
`
`which
`
`this Court
`
`denied
`
`without
`
`prejudice,
`
`but
`
`in its Memorandum
`
`Opinion,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`discussed
`
`Robertson's
`
`blatant
`
`misconduct
`
`in Robertson
`
`I, and although
`
`it declined
`
`at
`
`that
`
`time
`
`to enter
`
`an injunction,
`
`it stated:
`
`support
`provides
`case . . . the record
`In this
`been
`frivolous
`filings
`have
`of Robertson's
`many
`Courtis
`for
`of
`and the Court
`by both
`sanctioned
`this
`unnecessary
`filing
`feel
`and his associates
`that Cartinhour
`can be little
`doubt
`and there
`motions,
`this
`the Court
`cannot
`say, at
`by Robertson's
`. . . [H]owever,
`harassed
`conduct.
`the level
`of an
`have
`to warrant
`issuance
`that Robertson's
`filings
`reached
`time,
`the most
`egregious
`for only
`which
`the Court
`reserves
`cases.
`anti-suit
`injunction,
`
`claim that
`for Cartinhour's
`has been
`or harassive.
`Robertson
`Appeals¹6
`
`point
`at some
`if he persists,
`that
`cautions
`The Court
`Robertson,
`however,
`will
`an order
`litigation
`support
`and vexatious
`of groundless
`pattern
`continu[ed]
`the permission
`of
`as well
`or complaints
`without
`the courts,
`further
`against
`filings
`or with
`a harassive
`a litigant
`as other
`acts
`in bad faith,
`sanctions.
`Where
`purpose,
`is both
`appropriate
`and
`an order
`future
`suits without
`prior
`approval
`enjoining
`warns
`as did the Court
`of Appeals,
`therefore
`The Court
`necessary.
`Robertson,
`to pursue
`his current
`of unnecessarily
`if he should
`continue
`that
`strategy
`a renewed
`hesitate
`this Court
`will
`to entertain
`this
`not
`litigation,
`proliferating
`. . . it may well
`be appropriate
`to
`for an injunction.
`motion
`In the alternative,
`in February,
`reconsider
`this motion
`after
`the above-captioned
`case is adjudicated
`
`a
`
`Robertson
`
`unreasonably
`
`I, 711 F. Supp.
`and vexatiously
`
`2d 136,
`filing
`
`139 (D.D.C.
`2010)
`to quash
`a motion
`
`(imposing
`and motion
`
`of $1,887.00
`sanction
`for
`reconsideration).
`
`for
`
`'
`
`sanctions
`of Appeals
`6The Court
`imposed
`to stay
`fourth motion
`being warned
`despite
`pleadings."
`upon
`extreme
`disfavor
`unnecessary
`(D.C.
`I, No.
`10-7033
`Cir, Dec.
`14, 2010);
`Jurisdiction
`10-7033
`at 1, Robertson
`I, No.
`
`Robertson
`of $6,446.06
`against
`less than
`earlier
`a week
`that
`Fees
`Order
`Awarding
`Mot.
`on Emergency
`19, 2010).
`Cir. Oct.
`
`Order
`(D.C.
`
`his
`he filed
`after
`with
`looks
`"the Court
`at 1, Robertson
`and Costs
`for Order
`in Aid
`of
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`COUNTY'
`F ILED
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`/ 2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`6 of 16
`
`Page
`
`The D.C. Circuit
`
`has interpreted
`
`§ 1927 to "impose[]
`
`a continuing
`
`obligation
`
`on attorneys
`
`by prohibiting
`
`the persistent
`
`prosecution
`
`of a meritless
`
`claim."
`
`Wallace,
`
`964 F.2d
`
`at 1220-21
`
`(citing
`
`Thomas
`
`v. Capital
`
`Sec. Servs.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`836 F.2d
`
`866,
`
`875 (5th Cir.
`
`1988)
`
`(en banc)).
`
`In
`
`multiple
`
`cases,
`
`it has found
`
`§ 1927
`
`sanctions
`
`appropriate
`
`where
`
`"the
`
`attorney's
`
`behavior
`
`has
`
`been
`
`repeated
`
`or singularly
`
`egregious,"
`
`for example
`
`where
`
`the attorney
`
`"'repeatedly
`
`took
`
`actions
`
`[the
`
`time
`
`even
`
`though
`
`he had no
`
`which
`
`required
`
`defendant]
`
`to expend
`
`unnecessary
`
`and money,
`
`intention
`
`of pursuing
`
`this
`
`litigation.'"
`
`Wallace,
`
`964 F.2d
`
`at 1220-21
`
`(quoting
`
`Fritz
`
`v. Honda
`
`Motor
`
`Co.,
`
`818 F.2d
`
`924,
`
`925 (D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`1987)
`
`(alteration
`
`in original));
`
`see also Reliance
`
`Ins.
`
`Co.
`
`v. Sweeney
`
`Corp.,
`
`Maryland,
`
`792 F.2d
`
`1137,
`
`1139
`
`(D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`1986)
`
`("
`("With
`
`so many
`
`worthy
`
`claims
`
`waiting
`
`to be resolved,
`
`we cannot
`
`tolerate
`
`unfounded
`
`and undeveloped
`
`claims.
`
`Sanctions
`
`for
`
`this
`
`behavior
`
`appropriate.");
`
`see also
`
`The Jolly
`
`Group,
`
`Ltd.
`
`v. Medline
`
`Indus.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`are clearly
`
`435 F.3d
`
`717,
`
`720 (7th Cir.
`
`2006)
`
`("
`("We
`
`have
`
`also interpreted
`
`§ 1927
`
`to impose
`
`a continuing
`
`duty
`
`upon
`
`attorneys
`
`to dismiss
`
`claims
`
`that
`
`are no longer
`
`viable.")
`
`(internal
`
`quotation
`
`marks
`
`omitted).
`
`II,
`
`CLEVENGER'S
`
`CONDUCT
`
`IN ROBERTSON
`
`II
`
`Applying
`
`these
`
`standards,
`
`the Court
`
`has no difficulty
`
`concluding
`
`that
`
`sanctions
`
`are
`
`appropriate.
`
`First,
`
`Clevenger's
`
`decision
`
`to file Robertson
`
`IIin
`
`the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`while
`
`Robertson
`
`Iwas
`
`pending
`
`in this Court,
`
`served
`
`to multiply
`
`proceedings,
`
`and,
`
`as
`
`it was done
`
`for
`
`the
`
`recognized
`
`by this Court
`
`and the judge
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York,
`
`improper
`
`purpose
`
`of
`
`forestalling
`
`litigation
`
`in Robertson
`
`I. Neither
`
`Cartinhour
`
`nor
`
`the Kearney
`
`Attorneys
`
`had any
`
`contacts
`
`with New York,
`
`and as had been
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in Robertson
`
`II, Robertson
`
`was
`
`invited
`
`to amend
`
`(but
`
`chose
`
`not
`
`to do so) his complaint
`
`in Robertson
`
`I
`
`to include
`
`many
`
`of
`
`the very
`
`claims
`
`he subsequently
`
`sought
`
`to bring
`
`in Robertson
`
`II. See Robertson
`
`II, 2012 U.S.
`
`Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`35217,
`
`at
`
`*17-20.
`
`Rather
`
`than
`
`bringing
`
`his
`
`claims
`
`in the suit
`
`he had initiated
`
`in this
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`518372/2017
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`Page
`8 of 16
`
`since many
`the doctrine
`
`the issues
`of
`of collateral
`
`raised
`estoppel.
`
`in the New York
`
`action
`
`could
`
`well
`
`be barred
`
`by
`
`Mem.
`
`Op. at 5-6, Robertson
`
`I, December
`
`30, 2010
`
`(internal
`
`citations
`
`and quotations
`
`omitted,
`
`internal
`
`footnotes
`
`added).¹7
`
`Following
`
`the completion
`
`of
`
`the trial
`
`in Robertson
`
`Iand
`
`the entry
`
`of a judgment
`
`of $7
`
`million
`
`against
`
`Robertson,
`
`Judge Swain
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York
`
`transferred
`
`Robertson
`
`II
`
`to this Court,
`
`finding
`
`that
`
`having
`
`entered
`
`judgment
`
`in the underlying
`
`D.C.
`
`Action
`
`further
`
`and having
`
`presided
`
`over
`
`that
`
`jury
`
`trial,
`
`this Court
`
`is in the best position
`
`to review
`
`any
`
`briefing
`
`and make
`
`res judicata
`
`determinations.
`
`Robertson
`
`II, 2011 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`126030,
`
`at
`
`*13.
`
`She also recognized
`
`the improper
`
`purpose
`
`of
`
`the suit
`
`filed
`
`by Clevenger:
`
`decision
`Robertson's
`been principally
`have
`and so should
`court,
`
`suit
`to file
`a tactical
`be accorded
`
`of New York
`in the Southern
`District
`the jurisdiction
`to avoid
`of
`maneuver
`little
`deference.
`
`appears
`the D.C.
`
`to
`
`Id.18
`Id.
`
`Following
`
`the transfer
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case to the undersigned
`
`in November
`
`2011,
`
`and while
`
`the
`
`represent
`on the duty
`can Clevenger
`his client.
`to zealously
`immunize
`17Nor
`himself
`by relying
`is his
`and it
`to the profession
`also has a duty
`and the Court
`at 7.)
`An attorney
`(Clevenger
`Opp'n
`to fulfill
`or counsel
`is not
`for maintaining
`an
`to be penalized
`a party
`both.
`"While
`litigation
`serve
`the interests
`of
`their
`of
`do not
`the
`attorneys
`clients,
`posture,
`tactical
`or of society
`when
`assert
`or defenses
`grounded
`on nothing
`but
`claims
`they
`expediency."
`(internal
`1180
`Westmoreland
`v. CBS,
`770 F.2d
`(D.C.
`Cir.
`1168,
`1985)
`Sacramento
`quotation
`and citations
`see Davydenko
`v. Brasher's
`marks,
`omitted);
`alterations,
`(In re Luxury
`2012 U.S. Dist.
`Inc.
`Auto
`Imps.
`No.
`ofSacramento,
`Auction,
`Inc.),
`2:11-cv-03324,
`* 3-5 (E.D.
`at
`LEXIS
`for
`to dismiss
`Cal. May
`64623,
`7, 2012)
`(sanctioning
`failing
`attorney
`appeal
`the time
`counsel
`Fastov
`v. Christie's
`and thereby
`of opposing
`and the court);
`wasting
`(D.D.C.
`§ 1927 and the Court's
`to sanction
`42-43
`inherent
`2008)
`authority
`for all
`fees associated
`against
`claims
`in bad faith).
`initiated
`defending
`
`responsibility
`aggressive
`
`profession,
`strategic
`
`or
`
`Int'l
`
`PLC,
`litigant
`
`(invoking
`with
`
`18
`18Robertson,
`Swain's
`Judge
`29, 2011).
`Nov.
`
`proceeding
`transfer
`That
`
`pro
`order.
`petition
`
`se, petitioned
`Pet.
`for Writ
`was denied
`
`the Second
`of mandamus
`Circuit
`for a writ
`of Mandamus,
`11-4925
`Robertson
`II, No.
`on April
`2, 2012.
`
`to vacate
`(2d Cir.
`
`8
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`(F ILED
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`/ 2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`35
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`Page
`9 of 16
`
`parties
`
`were
`
`briefing
`
`the motion
`
`to dismiss,
`
`Clevenger
`
`filed
`
`yet another
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`recusal,¹9
`recusal,
`
`19
`
`which
`
`rehashed
`
`many
`
`of
`
`the same
`
`arguments
`
`which
`
`had previously
`
`been made
`
`by Robertson
`
`and
`
`which
`
`had been
`
`rejected
`
`by this
`
`Court20
`Court
`
`and the Circuit
`
`Court
`
`in Robertson
`
`L2¹
`I.
`
`Again,
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`had to waste
`
`their
`
`time
`
`and resources
`
`responding
`
`to the
`
`motion22
`motion
`
`22
`
`and the Court
`
`had to
`
`write
`
`another
`
`memorandum
`
`opinion
`
`denying
`
`a request
`
`for
`
`recusal.23
`recusal,
`
`23
`
`Then,
`
`on March
`
`16, 2012,
`
`the Court
`
`issued
`
`its Memorandum
`
`Opinion
`
`dismissing
`
`Robertson
`
`IIin
`
`its entirety.
`
`Robertson
`
`II, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`35217,
`
`at
`
`*2.
`
`As
`
`is clear
`
`from
`
`this
`
`second
`
`action
`
`it was
`
`foreclosed
`
`as a
`
`that opinion,
`
`was not only wasteful
`
`and duplicative,
`
`matter
`
`of
`
`law.
`
`Id. at
`
`*22-32
`
`(explaining
`
`the effect
`
`of Robertson
`
`—
`I-that
`
`the majority
`
`of
`
`the claims
`
`were
`
`barred
`
`by the doctrines
`
`of
`
`res judicata,
`
`judicial
`
`estoppel
`
`and the requirement
`
`of using
`
`the
`
`appeal
`
`process
`
`for
`
`correction
`
`of alleged
`
`trial
`
`errors).
`
`And,
`
`as further
`
`explained,
`
`there were
`
`a host
`
`of other
`
`reasons
`
`for
`
`throwing
`
`out
`
`the remaining
`
`claims.
`
`Id. at
`
`*32-58.24
`*32-58.
`
`19Pl.'s Mot.
`
`to Recuse
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 455, Robertson
`
`II(D.D.C.
`
`Feb.
`
`12, 2012).
`
`2°Robertson
`
`I, 691 F. Supp.
`
`2d 65, 77-80
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`2010).
`
`21In re Robertson,
`also Robertson
`
`No.
`10-5231,
`I, 429 Fed. Appx.
`
`2010 U.S. App.
`1, 4 (D.C.
`Cir.
`
`LEXIS
`2011).
`
`19454
`
`(D.C.
`
`Cir. Sept.
`
`15, 2010);
`
`see
`
`22See Def. Cartinhour's
`(D.D.C.
`Feb.
`27, 2012);
`§ 455, Robertson
`II(D.D.C.
`
`Opp'n
`
`to Pl.'s Mot.
`Attorneys'
`
`Kearney
`Feb.
`
`27, 2012).
`
`to Recuse
`Pursuant
`to Pl.'s Mot.
`Opp'n
`
`to 28 U.S.C.
`to Recuse
`
`II
`§ 455, Robertson
`Pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C.
`
`23Memorandum
`
`Opinion
`
`& Order,
`
`Robertson
`
`II(D.D.C.
`
`Mar.
`
`16, 2012).
`
`to the Circuit
`this
`decision
`appealed
`on June
`represented
`still
`24The plaintiff,
`by Clevenger,
`5,
`(See Clevenger
`of poverty.
`protestations
`and paid
`at 7;
`Opp'n
`their
`the filing
`fee, despite
`2012,
`. . . & Request
`11-00044
`Pl.'s Objections
`In re: W.A.R.
`at 6-7,
`for De Novo
`Review
`No.
`LLP,
`. .. For Relief
`(D.D.C.
`Bankr.
`from Judgment
`Debtor's
`Mot.
`the Court's
`of
`18, 2012);
`May
`and Orders
`11-00044
`LLP, No.
`4, 2012 Mem.
`at 2-4,
`In re: W.A.R.
`(D.D.C.
`Bankr.
`17,
`May
`of
`First Mot.
`from Judgment
`the Court's
`Pl.'s
`4, 2012 Mem.
`and
`. . . For Relief
`2012);
`May
`In re: W,A.R.
`Bankr.
`17, 2012).
`11-00044
`LLP, No.
`(D.D.C.
`Orders,
`
`May
`
`May
`
`9
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`KINGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`/2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`35
`NO.
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`Page
`10 of 16
`
`Given
`
`the Court's
`
`rejection
`
`of
`
`the claims
`
`in Robertson
`
`Has
`
`being
`
`flatly
`
`inconsistent
`
`with
`
`Robertson's
`
`claims
`
`in Robertson
`
`I,
`
`the jury's
`
`verdict
`
`for $7 million
`
`in that
`
`case, and Clevenger's
`
`course
`
`of conduct
`
`throughout
`
`this
`
`litigation,
`
`the Court
`
`is convinced,
`
`as were
`
`Judges
`
`Swain
`
`and
`
`Lamberth,
`
`that Robertson
`
`II was brought
`
`for no legitimate
`
`purpose
`
`but
`
`rather
`
`for harassment
`
`and
`
`delay.
`
`See Order
`
`at 7,
`
`In re W.A.R.,
`
`L.L.P.,
`
`No.
`
`11-cv-1574
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Apr.
`
`2, 2012);
`
`see also
`
`Katzman
`
`v. Victoria's
`
`Secret
`
`Catalogue,
`
`167 F.R.D.
`
`649,
`
`661
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`("
`("The
`
`total
`
`lack
`
`1996)
`
`of substance
`
`in the plaintiff's
`
`RICO
`
`claims
`
`and the egregious
`
`and unjustified
`
`neglect
`
`of
`
`the
`
`for
`
`improper
`
`required
`
`statutory
`
`elements
`
`give
`
`rise to the inference
`
`that
`
`the action
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`purposes."),
`
`aff d, 113 F.3d
`
`1229
`
`(2d Cir.
`
`1997)
`
`(mem.).
`
`Most
`
`importantly,
`
`the jury
`
`unanimously
`
`found
`
`that Robertson
`
`had breached
`
`his
`
`fiduciary
`
`duties
`
`to Cartinhour
`
`and,
`
`therefore,
`
`there
`
`could
`
`be no basis
`
`in law or
`
`fact
`
`for Clevenger's
`
`allegations
`
`in Robertson
`
`IIthat
`
`Cartinhour
`
`and others
`
`had conspired
`
`to defraud
`
`Robertson.
`
`By pursuing
`
`Robertson
`
`IIafter
`
`the verdict
`
`in
`
`Robertson
`
`I, Clevenger
`
`was
`
`far more
`
`than
`
`recklessly
`
`indifferent;
`
`he acted
`
`in bad faith
`
`and with
`
`utter
`
`disregard
`
`for
`
`the judicial
`
`system.25
`system,
`
`'
`
`Clevenger
`
`and his
`
`client
`
`were
`
`put on clear
`
`notice
`
`by this Court
`
`on December
`
`30, 2010,
`
`/
`
`Clevenger
`in a related
`been
`has already
`25As noted,
`bankruptcy
`D.D.C.
`No.
`11-0004
`W.A.R.
`Clevenger
`(Bankr.
`LLP.,
`3, 2012)
`(fining
`May
`Order
`and by the Court
`of Appeals,
`(D.C.
`10-7033
`I, No.
`at 1, Robertson
`fourth motion
`of
`to stay district
`costs
`for unwarranted
`(imposing
`filing
`Court
`the Circuit
`had summarily
`denied:
`to imposing
`those
`sanctions,
`of and sanctions
`filed
`disqualification
`against
`Cartinhour's
`seeking
`Cir. Sept.
`a petition
`(D.C.
`Robertson
`10-7033
`I, No.
`21, 2010);
`2010 U.S. App.
`see Robertson
`LEXIS
`I, No.
`10-5231,
`19454,
`for
`motion
`clarification
`where
`the Court
`and reconsideration,
`sanctions"
`to impose
`not hesitate
`for unnecessary
`and frivolous
`and D.C. Cir. Rule
`38, see Order
`at 1-2, Robertson
`I, No.
`10-7033
`to stay
`a preliminary
`Robertson's
`motion
`injunction,
`emergency
`10-7033
`June
`16, 2010).
`Cir.
`
`sanctioned
`
`10
`
`(D.C.
`
`In re
`proceeding,
`for
`frivolous
`filings),
`Cir. Oct.
`19, 2010)
`Prior
`court
`proceedings).
`motions
`which
`Clevenger
`see Order
`at 1,
`counsel,
`for mandamus
`recusal,
`seeking
`at *1 (D.C.
`Cir. Sept.
`15, 2010);
`him that
`"will
`warned
`it
`under
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1927
`Cir. Sept.
`3, 2010);
`at 1, Robertson
`
`a
`
`I, No.
`
`explicitly
`filings
`(D.C.
`see Order
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`COUNTY
`F ILED
`KINGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`/ 2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`11/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`11 of 16
`Page
`
`that a "continu[ed]
`
`pattern
`
`of groundless
`
`and vexatious
`
`litigation"
`
`would
`
`not
`
`be tolerated.
`
`(Mem.
`
`Op. at 6, Robertson
`
`I(D.D.C.)
`
`(alternation
`
`in original).)
`
`Despite
`
`this, Clevenger
`
`did not heed
`
`the
`
`warnings.
`
`Instead,
`
`he defied
`
`the Court
`
`by pursuing
`
`baseless
`
`claims
`
`and arguments.
`
`Sanctions
`
`for
`
`this
`
`bad faith
`
`conduct
`
`are clearly
`
`warranted.26
`warranted.
`
`26
`
`The Court,
`
`however,
`
`recognizes
`
`that
`
`it
`
`declined
`
`to find
`
`that Robertson's
`
`behavior
`
`prior
`
`to the verdict
`
`in Robertson
`
`I bad reached
`
`a level
`
`of egregiousness
`
`that would
`
`justify
`
`the issuance
`
`of an injunction,
`
`(id.),
`
`and it
`
`is mindful
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Court's
`
`to sanction
`
`should
`
`sparingly.
`
`964 F.2d
`
`at 1220.
`
`It will
`
`authority
`
`be exercised
`
`Wallace,
`
`therefore
`
`only
`
`impose
`
`sanctions
`
`commencing
`
`with
`
`the entry
`
`of
`
`judgment
`
`on February
`
`25, 2011,
`
`in Robertson
`
`I
`
`for
`
`conduct
`
`occurring
`
`in the district
`
`courts
`
`of D.C.
`
`and the Southern
`
`District
`
`of
`
`New York.27
`York,
`
`To be clear:
`
`the sanctions
`
`award
`
`does not
`
`include
`
`costs
`
`or
`
`time
`
`spent
`
`on the
`
`mandamus
`
`petition
`
`filed
`
`in the Second
`
`Circuit
`
`because
`
`that was
`
`filed
`
`by Robertson,
`
`as a pro
`
`se
`
`litigant
`
`(see Clevenger
`
`Opp'n,
`
`Ex.
`
`2 (Clevenger
`
`Aff.))
`
`and is not
`
`clearly
`
`attributable
`
`to
`
`Clevenger.
`
`26
`
`In circuits
`
`finding
`Oliveri
`court's
`
`it can be proven
`under
`sanctions
`of bad faith
`for
`require
`that
`a finding
`§ 1927,
`intent-
`of subjective
`lead to an inference
`actions
`through
`that
`of objective
`evidence
`indirectly
`-Arlington
`Ctr
`in law or
`Va. Hosp.
`lacks
`basis
`fact.
`that
`a colorable
`a document
`such
`as filing
`v. Aki
`at *18
`(Bankr.
`June
`(In re Akl),
`2011 Bankr.
`LEXIS
`Health
`Sys.
`D.D.C.
`14, 2011),
`2287,
`v. Va. Hosp.
`2012 U.S. Dist.
`72827
`Aki
`Ctr., No.
`LEXIS
`(D.D.C.
`25, 2012);
`11-1449,
`aff'd,
`May
`4 Service Workers
`4 Forestry,
`see, e.g., United
`Allied
`Indus.
`Steel, Paper
`Rubber
`Mfg.
`Energy,
`1209
`(9th Cir.
`549 F.3d
`Intern.
`CLC v. Shell Oil Co.,
`1204,
`AFIrCIO,
`Union,
`("[A]
`2008)
`of bad faith
`. . . may
`or disrupting
`be demonstrated
`by actions
`the litigation.");
`delaying
`("
`to the
`("Like
`an award made
`pursuant
`803 F.2d
`1273
`(2d Cir.
`v. Thompson,
`1265,
`1986)
`inherent
`under
`§ 1927
`is proper
`when
`the attorney's
`are so
`an award
`actions
`power,
`without
`the conclusion
`undertaken
`merit
`as to require
`that
`they must
`have
`been
`completely
`improper
`purpose
`as delay.").
`some
`such
`
`the Court
`
`27
`
`Therefore,
`sanctions
`begun.
`mandamus
`
`does not authorize
`not address
`§ 1927
`that
`argument
`Clevenger's
`need
`litigation
`that occurs
`for
`for
`a frivolous
`but only
`after
`conduct
`lawsuit,
`commencing
`the Court
`(Clevenger
`is not awarding
`In addition,
`Opp'n
`costs
`for
`the
`at 3.)
`fees
`which
`pro
`petition
`in the Second
`Circuit
`was
`filed
`(See supra
`se by Robertson.
`
`or
`
`18.)
`
`11
`
`for
`
`has
`
`note
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`COUNTY
`K INGS
`CLERK
`11/14
`:
`/ 2017
`: 5 1
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`518372/2017
`NO.
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`12 of 16
`Page
`
`I
`
`In reaching
`
`this
`
`decision,
`
`the Court
`
`rejects
`
`Clevenger's
`
`argument
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`is
`
`prohibited
`
`from imposing
`
`sanctions
`
`for
`
`conduct
`
`that occurred
`
`in this
`
`case,
`
`but while
`
`it was
`
`pending
`
`before
`
`a different
`
`judge
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York.
`
`(Clevenger
`
`Opp'n
`
`at 4.)
`
`To be sure,
`
`courts
`
`generally
`
`refrain
`
`from imposing
`
`sanctions
`
`for actions
`
`in other
`
`cases before
`
`other
`
`judges,
`
`but
`
`that principle
`
`is inapplicable
`
`here.
`
`Raymark
`
`Indus.
`
`v. Baron,
`
`No.
`
`96-7625,
`
`1997 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`8871,
`
`at
`
`*23
`
`n. 10 (E.D.
`
`Pa. June
`
`23,
`
`1997)
`
`("
`("The
`
`purpose
`
`of § 1927
`
`is
`
`frustrated
`
`by the imposition
`
`of sanctions
`
`in two
`
`distinct
`
`cases,
`
`not
`
`in two
`
`different
`
`courts.")
`
`(emphasis
`
`added).28
`added).
`
`'
`
`In a similar
`
`case,
`
`John Akridge
`
`Company
`
`v, Travelers
`
`Companies,
`
`944 F. Supp.
`
`33, 34
`
`filed
`
`a lawsuit
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`which
`
`was
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`1996),
`
`the plaintiff
`
`had originally
`
`dismissed.
`
`He then
`
`filed
`
`a second
`
`suit
`
`based
`
`on the same underlying
`
`facts
`
`in the Circuit
`
`Court
`
`for Montgomery
`
`County,
`
`Maryland,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`removed
`
`to federal
`
`court
`
`in Maryland.
`
`There,
`
`the judge
`
`recognized
`
`that
`
`the plaintiff
`
`was
`
`engaged
`
`in "blatant
`
`forum-shopping"
`
`and transferred
`
`the case back
`
`to the judge
`
`in D.C.
`
`Id.
`
`(quotation
`
`marks
`
`omitted).
`
`That
`
`judge
`
`imposed
`
`sanctions
`
`because
`
`the plaintiff
`
`had filed
`
`suit
`
`in Maryland
`
`"with
`
`the specific
`
`intent
`
`of circumventing
`
`this
`
`Court's
`
`dismissal
`
`of
`
`its earlier
`
`suit"
`
`and ordered
`
`him to pay
`
`the attorney's
`
`fees
`
`that had been
`
`incurred
`
`in both
`
`the Maryland
`
`and District
`
`of Columbia
`
`cases.
`
`Id.;
`
`see also BDT Products,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Lexmark
`
`Int'l,
`
`Inc.,
`
`602 F.3d
`
`742 (6th Cir.
`
`2010)
`
`(explaining
`
`that
`
`the Kentucky
`
`district
`
`court
`
`imposed
`
`sanctions
`
`for a frivolous
`
`action
`
`filed
`
`in California
`
`state court,
`
`removed
`
`to a district
`
`28
`
`Fluke Mfg.
`Systems
`on Grid
`relies
`Clevenger
`In his response,
`Co., 41 F.3d
`v. John
`Corp.
`(See Clevenger
`1319-20
`that
`case is neither
`at 4,) However,
`(9th Cir.
`Opp'n
`1994).
`binding
`the Fifth
`case on which
`persuasive
`since
`qualified
`by CJC
`it
`relied was
`Circuit
`subsequently
`& Lato,
`which
`989 F.2d
`explained
`791,793-94
`(5th Cir.
`Inc.
`v. Wright
`Holdings,
`1993),
`Inc.,
`for actions
`can impose
`in other
`courts
`when
`a litigant
`perpetrates
`courts
`sanctions
`occurring
`court."
`"bad-faith
`defiance
`of
`the sanctioning
`. . . in direct
`conduct
`
`1318,
`nor
`
`that
`
`12
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`F ILED
`K INGS
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/14
`: 51
`/ 2017
`:
`12
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`35
`
`Case
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`116
`
`Filed
`
`08/10/12
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`INDEX
`NO.
`518372/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`11/14/2017
`13 of 16
`
`Page
`
`court
`
`in California,
`
`and ultimately
`
`transferred
`
`to Kentucky);
`
`In re Auction
`
`