Chiriapa v. Matsul Inc
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-03313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Chiriapa v. Matsul, Judge Briccetti denied defendants’ Rule 11 sanctions motion with prejudice after the plaintiff dismissed the case and defendants failed to follow required procedures.
The ruling rejected Mor Melamed and Shoshana Melamed’s request for sanctions, fees, expenses, and filing restrictions against Miguel A. Chiriapa and his counsel.
What happened
In Chiriapa v. Matsul Inc., Miguel A. Chiriapa voluntarily dismissed his case against Matsul Inc., Achla Shawrma Factory Inc., Mor Melamed, and Shoshana Melamed. The court then considered a sanctions request filed by Mor Melamed and Shoshana Melamed.
Those defendants asked the court to order payment of fees and expenses and to restrict future lawsuits by Chiriapa and his lawyer. They argued that the lawsuit lacked adequate factual support, that Shoshana Melamed had not been properly served, and that sanctions would discourage future litigation.
Judge Vincent Briccetti denied the sanctions motion with prejudice. He explained that the defendants did not show they had served the sanctions motion before filing it in court, as required, and that Chiriapa had already dismissed the case.
The detailed version
- Chiriapa v. Matsul Inc · No. 7:20-cv-03313
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 4, 2020
Background
Miguel A. Chiriapa filed this action against Matsul Inc.; Achla Shawrma Factory Inc., doing business as Achla!; Mor Melamed; and Shoshana Melamed. Chiriapa later moved for entry of a default judgment against all four defendants. The court ordered the defendants to explain why default judgment should not be entered.
Mor Melamed and Shoshana Melamed opposed the default-judgment request and filed a motion to dismiss. Their filings also sought sanctions against Chiriapa’s counsel. The court denied an earlier sanctions motion without prejudice because it did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2).
On July 30, 2020, Chiriapa filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the action against all four defendants, and the Clerk closed the case. On July 31, Mor Melamed and Shoshana Melamed filed the Rule 11 sanctions motion at issue here. They requested $1,250 in attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, as well as orders restricting Chiriapa and his counsel from filing additional civil actions or seeking relief against the defendants without certification from a federal judicial officer.
Reasons for the ruling
Rule 11(c)(2) requires a sanctions motion to be made separately, describe the specific challenged conduct, and be served before it is filed in court. The rule gives the opposing party 21 days after service to withdraw or correct the challenged filing; this is commonly called the safe-harbor period.
The court found that the defendants had not shown that they served the sanctions motion on Chiriapa before filing it. The defendants relied on a purported Rule 11 letter, but that letter attached a stipulation and order and a motion to dismiss—not the sanctions motion itself. The sanctions motion’s certificate indicated that the motion was served on July 31, the same day it was filed with the court.
The court also emphasized that Chiriapa had already dismissed the action against all defendants. The court therefore stated that it would not impose sanctions.
Disposition
The court denied the Rule 11 motion for sanctions with prejudice and instructed the Clerk to terminate that motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.