Briks v. Smith, Strege, Fredericksen, Butts, & Clark, Ltd

Background

James Briks and Jerome Briks sued Smith, Strege, Fredericksen, Butts, & Clark, Ltd. and Richard E.T. Smith. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by establishing a trust for the plaintiffs’ brother and improperly placing certain property in it.

The defendants moved to dismiss the January 8, 2019 complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The plaintiffs later filed a document labeled “Notice” that included an exhibit labeled “Amended Complaint.”

A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss the January 8 complaint and ruled on several other nondispositive matters. The plaintiffs objected to the recommendation and appealed the other rulings.

Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss

The district court concluded that the plaintiffs filed the amended complaint within the 21-day period in which a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course after being served with a Rule 12(b) motion. Although the amended complaint was submitted as an exhibit to a document labeled “Notice,” the court applied the rule that filings by people without lawyers are read liberally. The court therefore held that the February 19, 2019 amended complaint was the operative complaint.

Because the magistrate judge’s recommendation addressed the superseded January 8 complaint, the district court rejected the recommendation to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint. The court instead denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

Appeals of Nondispositive Rulings

For nondispositive rulings—rulings that do not finally decide the claims—the district court could change the magistrate judge’s decision only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

The plaintiffs challenged the striking of their second, unsolicited memorandum of law. The district court found that the magistrate judge mistakenly failed to recognize the amended complaint, but also found that the magistrate judge correctly determined that the second memorandum violated a local rule prohibiting a second memorandum opposing a dispositive motion. The district court affirmed the decision to strike the memorandum.

The plaintiffs also challenged termination of their “Motion to Show Cause.” The document merely listed filings and requested no relief. The district court held that the magistrate judge’s decision to direct the Clerk of Court to terminate it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and affirmed that ruling.

Finally, the plaintiffs challenged denial of their motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). They argued that the defendants misrepresented the sequence of events in a meet-and-confer statement. The district court held that a disagreement over which party initiated a sequence of missed calls did not constitute conduct warranting Rule 11 sanctions and affirmed the denial of the sanctions motion.

Disposition

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered that the June 6, 2019 Report and Recommendation be rejected, that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as moot, and that the June 6, 2019 Order be affirmed as addressed in the opinion.