The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
__________________________________
:
DR. CHRISTINE LENTZ and LYNN :
PETROZZA, :
:
Plaintiffs, : Civil No. 17-4515
:
v. : OPINION
DR. KATHLEEN TAYLOR, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
__________________________________ :
KUGLER, United States District Judge:
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. No. 65). For the
reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.
Background information for this matter is set out in our prior opinion (Doc. No. 74). There,
we dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Still pending is Defendants’ motion for
sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. Defendants contend that Rule 11
sanctions are warranted here because Plaintiffs’ claims were false and frivolous. They seek
reimbursement for attorneys’ fees.
Rule 11 "is intended to discourage pleadings that are frivolous, legally unreasonable, or
without factual foundation, even though the paper was not filed in subjective bad faith." Napier v.
Thirty or More Unidentified Fed. Agents, 855 F.2d 1080, 1090-91 (3d Cir. 1988). Sanctions under
Rule 11 "are based on an objective standard of reasonableness under the circumstances." Martin
v. Brown, 63 F.3d 1252, 1254 (3d Cir. 1995). A plaintiff filing a complaint certifies that the
complaint "is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass . . . or to needlessly
increase the cost of litigation," that the claims "are warranted by existing law" or an objectively
reasonable argument for a change in existing law, and "the factual contentions have evidentiary
support." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 "must not be used as an automatic penalty against an
attorney or a party advocating the losing side of a dispute." Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479,
482 (3d Cir.1987).
Defendants and Plaintiff filed papers that go back and forth on myriad factual disputes
about when individuals learned of certain plans, when certain plans became concrete, whether
Plaintiff was forced to resign, whether Plaintiff was the target of the theft investigation, whether
Defendants made incorrect representations to law enforcement, and whether Defendants
discriminated against Plaintiff.
Defendants repeatedly invoke evidence from the related state criminal trial that supports
their positions. But the state criminal trial was a separate proceeding with different claims and a
different standard of proof. Plaintiffs have not violated Rule 11(b). The filings between Plaintiffs
and Defendants do not strike the Court as anything more than the familiar back and forth about
factual disputes attendant to most adversarial proceedings. The Court does not believe that
Plaintiff's arguments rise to the level of "unmeritorious" that would justify sanctions. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Defendants' request for Rule 11 sanctions. An order follows.
Dated: 2/24/2022 /s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge