INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:12 PM
`Case 1:11-cv-01919-ESH Document 117 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 1
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1404375 Filed: 11/09/2012 Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`WADE A. ROBERTSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 11-1919 (ESH)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`WILLIAM C. CARTINHOUR, JR., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion [Dkt. No. 116], it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Cartinhour’s motion for sanctions [Dkt. No. 99] is GRANTED as to
`
`
`
`
`
`fees incurred as of February 25, 2011; it is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Cartinhour file unredacted copies of documentation regarding the fees
`
`and costs that he seeks within 10 calendar days from the date of this order; and it is further
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Clevenger may file an opposition 7 calendar days after Cartinhour files
`
`the documentation of fees and costs and Cartinhour may file a reply 5 calendar days after
`
`Clevenger’s filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 10, 2012
`
` /s/
`ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
`United States District Judge
`
` 
`
`- 1 -
`
`(Page 1 of Total)
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:12 PM
`Case 1:11-cv-01919-ESH Document 121 Filed 08/30/12 Page 1 of 3
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1404375 Filed: 11/09/2012 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`__________________________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 11-1919 (ESH)
`v.
`)
`
`WILLIAM C. CARTINHOUR, JR., et al.,
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`WADE ROBERTSON,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
`
`By Memorandum 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
`
`an award of $10,211.92 in expenses and $113,590.25 in attorney’s fees. (Praecipe (Dkt. No.
`
`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 nonmeritorious 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
`
`. . . .” and that Robertson “believe[d] this case to be meritorious.” (Clevenger’s Opp’n., Ex. 1.)
`
`(Page 2 of Total)
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:12 PM
`Case 1:11-cv-01919-ESH Document 121 Filed 08/30/12 Page 2 of 3
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1404375 Filed: 11/09/2012 Page 2 of 3
`
`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
`
`assumption that he cannot be liable for sanctions under § 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 *18. It was Clevenger’s needless filings and
`
`pattern of groundless and vexatious 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] client[].”
`
`In re TCI Ltd., 769 F.2d 441, 447 (7th Cir. 1985). In short, Hilton Hotels, which was a Rule 11
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`(Page 3 of Total)
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:12 PM
`Case 1:11-cv-01919-ESH Document 121 Filed 08/30/12 Page 3 of 3
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1404375 Filed: 11/09/2012 Page 3 of 3
`
`and $10,211.92 for costs) to be paid on or before September 30, 2012.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 30, 2012
`
`
`
`
` /s/
`ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
`United States District Judge
`
`
`3
`
`(Page 4 of Total)
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:12 PM
`Case 1:11-cv-01919-ESH Document 127 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1404375 Filed: 11/09/2012 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`__________________________________________
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 11-1919 (ESH)
`v.
`)
`
`WILLIAM C. CARTINHOUR, JR., et al.,
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`WADE ROBERTSON,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Ty Clevenger’s Rule 59 Motion and Objections [ECF No. 122].
`
`Cartinhour has opposed this motion [ECF No. 123] and Clevenger has filed a reply [ECF No.
`
`124]. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is DENIED.
`
`First, Clevenger wants the Court to correct allegedly false statements in its Memorandum
`
`Opinion of August 10, 2012, wherein it concluded that sanctions were appropriate. (See Mem.
`
`Op., Aug. 10, 2012 [ECF No. 116]; see also Order, Aug. 10, 2012 [ECF No. 117].) Clevenger
`
`takes issue with this Court’s quotation of Judge Lamberth’s opinion (see Mot. at 1) and
`
`characterization of Judge Swain’s decision. (See Mot. at 2.) The Court correctly quoted both
`
`decisions (see 8/10/2012 Mem. Op. at 2, 8), and its characterization of Judge Swain’s opinion is
`
`entirely reasonable. It therefore sees no basis to amend its August 10, 2012 Memorandum
`
`Opinion.
`
`Second, the Court has ruled that Clevenger has not been denied his due process rights,
`
`and his subjective beliefs about the merits of Robertson II do not change the Court’s conclusion.
`
`Moreover, any further discovery regarding whether Cartinhour incurred these fees is both
`
`(Page 5 of Total)
`
`

`

`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2017 03:12 PM
`Case 1:11-cv-01919-ESH Document 127 Filed 09/27/12 Page 2 of 2
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2017
`USCA Case #12-7100 Document #1404375 Filed: 11/09/2012 Page 2 of 2
`
`needless and burdensome. Clevenger and Robertson chose to sue the Kearney lawyers and
`
`Cartinhour. Cartinhour had no choice but to retain new counsel because of Clevenger’s litigation
`
`tactics, and the cases cited by Clevenger are not relevant1 since there is no legitimate basis to
`
`argue that Cartinhour was not a real party in interest, nor has Clevenger challenged the
`
`reasonableness of the fees. (See Mem. Op, & Order at 2, Aug. 30, 2012 [ECF No. 121].)
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Clevenger’s Rule 59 Motion and Objections is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 27, 2012
`
`
`
`
` /s/
`ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`1 National Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319, 1329 (D.C. Cir.
`1982), and Thrift Depositors of America, Inc. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 1996 WL 247971
`(D.C. Cir. 1996).
`
`2
`
`(Page 6 of Total)
`
`