Kesner v. Buhl

Background

The text is a letter motion from defendant Teri Buhl’s attorneys requesting costs, attorney’s fees, and sanctions after an earlier opinion and order dated March 10, 2022. The letter states that the earlier decision treated Buhl as the prevailing party. It also quotes that decision as stating that Kesner did not appear to have conducted discovery or actively litigated the case.

Requests

Buhl requested costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), estimated at not less than $1,750. She requested $234,900 in attorney’s fees under Rule 54(d)(2), the court’s inherent authority to address bad-faith litigation, and the American Rule’s bad-faith exception. Buhl argued that Kesner brought and maintained a meritless lawsuit to harass her and failed to voluntarily dismiss or seek permission to dismiss the claims against her.

Buhl separately requested sanctions against Kesner’s attorney, Steven Biss, under Rule 11. She argued that, after discovery ended, there was no reasonable factual or legal basis to continue the action or oppose Buhl’s summary-judgment motion. Buhl also argued that Rule 11’s usual 21-day notice period, known as the safe-harbor provision, did not apply to the alleged failure to maintain evidentiary support for the claims. She proposed a sanction of at least $75,000 against Biss.

Court’s action

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered that Kesner and Biss’s responses would be due March 31, 2022. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied Buhl’s requests for costs, attorney’s fees, or sanctions. It therefore reflects a response deadline rather than a ruling on those requests.