`
`EXHIBIT “S”
`
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01m2018 02:17 PM
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 114
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 114
`
`18372/2017é
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`INDEX NO'
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RaCaIVaD VYSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`01/03/2018’
`
`
`
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 114
`Case
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`1 of 3
`
`Page
`
`Filed
`
`08/30/12
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`121
`
`ll
`f
`
`!
`
`!
`
`STATES
`UNITED
`FOR THE DISTRICT
`
`COURT
`DISTRICT
`OF COLUMBIA
`
`Action
`
`No.
`
`11-1919
`
`(ESH)
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) Civil
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`WADE ROBERTSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WILLIAM
`
`C. CARTINHOUR,
`
`JR.,
`
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`OPINION
`
`& ORDEll
`
`By Memoradüm
`=-:-:
`
`Opinion
`
`issued
`
`on August
`
`10, 2012,
`
`this Court
`
`determined
`
`that
`
`sanctions
`
`against
`
`Ty Clevenger
`
`under
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1927 were
`
`appropriate
`
`given
`
`Clevenger's
`
`conduct
`
`in the above-captioned
`
`case. Robertson
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`No.
`
`11-cv-1919,
`
`2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`112289,
`
`at
`
`*18
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`Aug.
`
`10, 2012).
`
`Pursuant
`
`to the Court's
`
`Order,
`
`defense
`
`counsel
`
`submitted
`
`documentation
`
`for
`
`the period
`
`February
`
`25, 2011,
`
`through
`
`March
`
`21, 2012,
`
`to support
`
`(Praecipe
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`an award
`
`of $10,211.92
`
`in expenses
`
`and $113,590.25
`
`in attorney's
`
`fees.
`
`118.)
`
`In response,
`
`Clevenger
`
`objects
`
`to the award
`
`of sanctions
`
`solely
`
`on the legal
`
`grounds
`
`that
`
`a
`
`lawyer
`
`should
`
`not be sanctioned
`
`under
`
`§ 1927 when
`
`"he merely
`
`accede[d]
`
`to his
`
`client[
`
`[Wade
`
`]
`
`Robertson's]
`
`wishes
`
`to continue
`
`'
`—
`——
`a nor-iiteritorious
`
`claim."
`
`(Objection
`
`to the Court's
`
`Proposed
`
`Sanctions
`
`Order
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`119)
`
`("Clevenger's
`
`Opp'n")
`
`(quoting
`
`Hilton
`
`Hotels
`
`v. Banov,
`
`899
`
`F.2d
`
`40, 45 fn. 9 (D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`1990).)
`
`In support,
`
`Clevenger
`
`has submitted
`
`Wade
`
`Robertson's
`
`affidavit
`
`attesting
`
`to the fact
`
`that he "insisted
`
`that
`
`. . . [Clevenger]
`
`continue
`
`prosecuting
`
`this
`
`case
`
`...."
`...."
`
`
`
`
`
`Robertsonandand thatthat Robertson
`
`
`
`"believe[d]"believe[d]
`
`thisthis
`
`casecase toto bebe
`
`
`
`meritorious."meritorious."
`
`
`
`(Clevenger's{Clevenger's
`
`
`
`Opp'n.,Opp'n.,
`
`Ex.Ex.
`
`1.)1.)
`
`
`
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 114
`Case
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`2 of 3
`
`Page
`
`Filed
`
`08/30/12
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`121
`
`I
`
`I i
`
`Cartinhour
`
`has filed
`
`a reply.
`
`(William
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`Reply
`
`to Ty Clevenger's
`
`August
`
`24, 2012
`
`Pleading
`
`(Dkt.
`
`No.
`
`120).)
`
`Based
`
`on the record
`
`before
`
`the Court,
`
`as well
`
`as for
`
`the reasons
`
`stated
`
`in its
`
`Memorandum
`
`Opinion
`
`of August
`
`10, 2012,
`
`the Court
`
`concludes
`
`that Clevenger
`
`has not
`
`raised
`
`any
`
`issue
`
`as to the reasonableness
`
`of
`
`the fees and costs,
`
`but
`
`instead,
`
`he relies
`
`on the erroneous
`
`he cannot
`
`under
`
`assumption
`
`that
`
`be liable
`
`for
`
`sanctions
`
`§ 1927
`
`if he accedes
`
`to his
`
`client's
`
`wishes
`
`to continue
`
`a nonmeritious
`
`claim.
`
`This
`
`response
`
`is both
`
`factually
`
`and legally
`
`wrong.
`
`!
`
`First,
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`from this Court's
`
`opinion
`
`that Clevenger
`
`cannot
`
`hide
`
`behind
`
`Robertson.
`
`His
`
`own
`
`conduct
`
`constituted
`
`"bad
`
`faith
`
`and [an]
`
`utter
`
`disregard
`
`for
`
`the judicial
`
`system."
`
`Robertson,
`
`2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`112289,
`
`at
`
`*l 8.
`
`It was Clevenger's
`
`needless
`
`filings
`
`and
`
`and vexatious
`
`pattern
`
`of groundless
`
`litigation,
`
`whether
`
`at Robertson's
`
`behest
`
`or not,
`
`that
`
`contributed
`
`to wasted
`
`time
`
`and resources
`
`by Cartinhour
`
`and the Court.
`
`In addition,
`
`as defendant
`
`correctly
`
`argues,
`
`Hilton
`
`Hotels
`
`does
`
`not
`
`immunize
`
`a lawyer
`
`from § 1927.
`
`After
`
`the jury
`
`rendered
`
`its verdict,
`
`Clevenger
`
`had no good
`
`faith
`
`basis
`
`to proceed
`
`with
`
`Robertson's
`
`outlandish
`
`legal
`
`and
`
`factual
`
`positions,
`
`nor
`
`can he justify
`
`his actions
`
`by
`
`claiming
`
`that
`
`he had to "appease
`
`[his]
`
`769 F.2d
`
`447
`
`client[]."
`
`11
`
`In re TCI
`
`Ltd.,
`
`441,
`
`(7th Cir.
`
`1985).
`
`In short, Hilton
`
`Hotels,
`
`which
`
`was
`
`a Rule
`
`case,
`
`not a § 1927
`
`case,
`
`does not
`
`help Clevenger.
`
`No matter
`
`how
`
`stringent
`
`a standard
`
`is imposed,
`
`see United
`
`States
`
`v. Wallace,
`
`964 F.2d
`
`1214,
`
`1218-19
`
`(D.C.
`
`Cir.
`
`1992),
`
`and LaPrade
`
`v. Kidder
`
`Peabody
`
`& Co.,
`
`146 F.3d
`
`899,
`
`905
`
`(D.C.Cir.1998),
`
`Clevenger
`
`has violated
`
`that
`
`standard
`
`and
`
`sanctions
`
`are warranted.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the Court
`
`awards
`
`sanctions
`
`in the sum of $123,802.17
`
`($113,590.25
`
`for
`
`fees
`
`22
`
`
`
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 114
`Case
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`3 of 3
`
`Page
`
`Filed
`
`08/30/12
`
`1:11-cv-01919-ESH
`
`Document
`
`121
`
`and $10,211.92
`
`for
`
`costs)
`
`to be paid
`
`on or before
`
`September
`
`30, 2012.
`
`/s/
`HUVELLE
`SEGAL
`Judge
`States District
`
`ELLEN
`United
`
`Date:
`
`August
`
`30, 2012
`
`1
`
`3
`
`