Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide"
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Actava TV v. Joint Stock Company “Channel One Russia Worldwide,” Judge Willis denied defendants’ Rule 11 motion without prejudice for skipping required pre-motion conferences and filing prematurely.
The defendants’ Rule 11 sanctions motion was denied without prejudice. The defendants may refile it in compliance with the court’s individual practices, while the motion also remains premature pending a ruling on their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
What happened
In Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company “Channel One Russia Worldwide,” defendants asked for attorneys’ fees under Rule 11. Plaintiffs argued that defendants had not followed the court’s requirement to request a pre-motion conference before filing the motion.
The court explained that the motion was really a request for Rule 11 sanctions, even though it sought attorneys’ fees, and therefore required a pre-motion conference under both the magistrate judge’s and Judge Carter’s practices. The court also said the motion was premature because it had not yet ruled on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Judge Willis denied the motion without prejudice for failing to follow the court’s practices and because it was premature. Defendants may refile it in compliance with those practices; the clerk was directed to close two docket numbers.
The detailed version
- Actava TV, Inc. v. Joint Stock Company "Channel One Russia Worldwide" · No. 1:18-cv-06626
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 seeking attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs objected that defendants had not requested the pre-motion conference required by the applicable individual practices. The case had been referred to Judge Willis for general pretrial matters, including non-dispositive pretrial motions.
Analysis
Judge Willis held that her individual practices required defendants to request a pre-motion conference before filing the motion. The court also concluded that, even if there had been uncertainty about which practices applied, Judge Carter’s practices likewise required a pre-motion conference for a Rule 11 sanctions motion.
The court rejected defendants’ argument that the motion was exempt because it was an application for attorneys’ fees. The court looked to the motion’s substance and determined that it was a Rule 11 sanctions motion seeking attorneys’ fees as relief. A later application for fees, after sanctions were granted, could have been exempt from the pre-motion conference requirement, but this sanctions motion was not.
Disposition
Judge Willis denied the motion without prejudice because defendants failed to follow the applicable individual practices. The court stated that defendants may refile the motion in compliance with those practices. The court also denied the motion without prejudice as premature because it had not yet ruled on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The clerk was directed to close docket numbers 529 and 531.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.