Chaney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JEROME CHANEY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 24-901-SDD-SDJ

AMERINATIONAL COMMUNITY

SERVICES, LLC, ET AL

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Sanctions (R. Doc. 45) filed by Defendant AmeriNational

Community Services, LLC (“AmeriNat”). Plaintiff has not responded to this Motion, and the

deadline for filing an opposition has passed. See Local Civil Rule 7(f) (responses to motions are

due within 21 days). As such, the Court considers Defendants’ Motion unopposed. AmeriNat

moves this Court for sanctions for the submission of a pleading that is without basis in fact or law.

For the following reasons, the Motion for Sanctions is denied.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff Jerome Chaney filed a Complaint in this matter. (R. Doc.

1). Mr. Chaney filed an action for damages, alleging he could not get financing for a mortgage due

to violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq. by Defendants

AmeriNational Community Services, LLC, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian

Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union, LLC. (R. Doc. 1 at 1). The Complaint alleges that

Mr. Chaney purchased a home on or around November 30, 1998, using two mortgage loans. (R.

Doc. 1 at ¶ 9), that the second that the second mortgage loan was in the amount of $10,000 and

payable to the City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge (R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 10), that Mr.

Chaney fell behind on his first mortgage (R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 11), that the first mortgage lender

foreclosed its mortgage on Mr. Chaney’s home in 2001 and sold the home on or about April 18,

2001. (R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 12-15). The Complaint further alleges that the foreclosure sale accelerated

the second mortgage loan (R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 16), that AmeriNat became the servicer of the second

mortgage loan in 2018, that AmeriNat reported negative information regarding the second

mortgage loan to Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and

Trans Union LLC (R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 17), that is information was obsolete (R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 18), and that

Mr. Chaney disputed this reporting and AmeriNat refused to correct it (R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 19, 24- 26).

On November 25, 2024, Counsel for AmeriNat informed Mr. Chaney’s counsel that the

debt evidenced by the note which was secured by the second mortgage was still outstanding. (R.

Doc. 45-1). AmeriNat also made a settlement proposal in this correspondence. AmeriNat’s counsel

followed up on January 14, 2025, March 10, 2025, March 13, 2025, March 18, 2025, and March

20, 2025. Mr. Chaney’s counsel refused to respond or otherwise engage in any discussions with

AmeriNat’s counsel. (R. Doc. 45-1).

On March 27, 2025, AmeriNat served its First Set of Requests for Admission, First Set of

Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests for Production (collectively, the “Requests”) on Mr.

Chaney. (R. Doc. 44-4). Mr. Chaney’s responses to the Requests were due on April 28, 2025. (R.

Doc. 44-4). Mr. Chaney was also provided with the RFAs on or about May 27, 2025, and, again,

he has not responded or requested an extension. The effect of this failure is to admit the matters

set forth in the RFAs. FCRP 36(a)(3). As a result of these admissions, the matters set forth in them

are “conclusively established” in this litigation. FRCP 36(b). The following statements are deemed

admitted: “that the allegations in the Complaint with respect to AmeriNat have no basis in law or

fact” and that “AmeriNat fully complied with the FCRA in its dealings with [him].” (R. Doc. 44-

4 at 7-8).

On June 18, 2025, AmeriNat filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (R. Doc. 44). Plaintiff

filed a Motion for Extension to Respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (R. Doc. 48).

Despite the extension, however, Plaintiff submitted no opposition to AmeriNat’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. On August 8, 2025, this Court granted AmeriNat’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, particularly because AmeriNat’s State of Undisputed Facts was uncontroverted, and the

summary judgment evidence submitted supported AmeriNat’s arguments. (R. Doc. 50).

In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, AmeriNat filed a Statement of Material

Facts (R. Doc. 44-2), which stated that “[t]he entire principal balance of the Second Note is due

and owing” and “[t]he information appearing in Mr. Chaney’s credit reports with respect to the

Second Note is true and accurate.” (R. Doc. 44-2). AmeriNat also stated that “Mr. Chaney ignored

all of AmeriNat’s attempts to contact him to discuss the status of the Second Note.” (R. Doc. 44-

2).

As required by FRCP 11(c)(2), counsel for AmeriNat served Mr. Chaney’s counsel with

copies of the instant Motion, along with the accompanying Memorandum and Exhibits, on May

23, 2025, to give Mr. Chaney an opportunity to dismiss the Complaint as to AmeriNat. Mr. Chaney

declined to do so. AmeriNat filed the instant Motion on June 18, 2025.

II. Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides, in pertinent part:

(b) By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether

by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented

party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief,

formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

...

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law

or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law

or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified,

will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery; and

...

(c)(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law

firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not

violated Rule 11(b).

In Heisler v. Kean Miller, LLP, the Eastern District of Louisiana explained: “[t]he purpose of Rule

11 is to deter baseless filings in the district court, and to spare innocent litigants and overburdened

courts from the filing of frivolous lawsuits. No. 21-724, 2021 WL 5919507, *3 (E.D. La. Dec. 15,

2021) (citing Cotter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393(1990)). The United States Fifth

Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 11 to impose three affirmative duties, which an

attorney or litigant, by signing a pleading, written motion, or other paper, certifies he has complied

with:

(1) the duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts supporting the

document (2) the duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law to ensure the

document “embodies existing legal principles or a good faith argument for

extension, modification or reversal of existing law”; and (3) the duty to certify that

a document is not filed or interposed merely for purposes of delay, harassment, or

increasing litigation costs.

Id. (quoting Childs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 29 F.3d 1019, 1023–24 (5th Cir. 1994)).

District courts have wide latitude to impose sanctions under Rule 11 as district court rulings under

Rule 11 are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332

F.3d 796, 802 (5th Cir. 2003)). District courts possess discretion in determining the nature of the

appropriate sanction. Id. (citing Thomas v. Cap. Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 873 (5th Cir.

1988)). Rule 11 sanction decisions must comport with due process requirements. Brown v. Clark,

No. CV 18-1069-SDD-RLB, 2022 WL 2445006, at *4–5 (M.D. La. July 5, 2022). Further, courts

must ensure that notice and an opportunity to be heard have been given before Rule 11 sanctions

may be imposed. Id. This requirement is generally satisfied by “[s]imply giving the individual

accused of a Rule 11 violation a chance to respond through the submission of a brief.” Id. (quoting

Childs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 29 F.3d 1019, 1023–24 (5th Cir. 1994)).

III. Analysis

Based on the record, an award of Rule 11 sanctions is unwarranted. AmeriNat served

written discovery with the expectation that Mr. Chaney would not respond and thus the statements

in AmeriNat’s requests for admission would be “deemed admitted” and “conclusively established”

for future purposes of litigation, namely, an award of summary judgment in favor of AmeriNat.

AmeriNat never filed a motion to compel discovery responses from Mr. Chaney, despite Mr.

Chaney’s lack of a response to several correspondences.

On November 25, 2024, Counsel for AmeriNat informed Mr. Chaney’s counsel that the

debt evidenced by the note which was secured by the second mortgage was still outstanding. (R.

Doc. 45-1). AmeriNat’s counsel followed up on January 14, 2025, March 10, 2025, March 13,

2025, March 18, 2025, and March 20, 2025. Mr. Chaney’s counsel refused to respond or otherwise

engage in any discussions with AmeriNat’s counsel. (R. Doc. 45-1).

Shortly thereafter, on March 27, 2025, AmeriNat served its First Set of Requests for

Admission (the “RFAs”), First Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests for Production

(collectively, the “Requests”) on Mr. Chaney. (R. Doc. 44-4). Mr. Chaney’s responses to the

Requests were due on April 28, 2025. (R. Doc. 44-4). Mr. Chaney was also provided with the

RFAs on or about May 27, 2025, and, again, he has not responded or requested an extension. The

effect of this failure is to admit the matters set forth in the RFAs. FCRP 36(a)(3). As a result of

these admissions, the matters set forth in them are “conclusively established” in this litigation.

FRCP 36(b).

AmeriNat argues that Mr. Chaney now admits that “that the allegations in the Complaint

with respect to AmeriNat have no basis in law or fact” and that “AmeriNat fully complied with

the FCRA in its dealings with [him].” (R. Doc. 44-4 at 7-8). However, neither Mr. Chaney nor his

counsel explicitly admitted that the Complaint filed was “frivolous and lacked basis in law or fact”.

The Court has no additional, substantive evidence that Mr. Chaney and/or his legal counsel

intentionally filed the Complaint against AmeriNat knowing the allegations were false and that the

claims against AmeriNat indeed had no basis in fact or law. AmeriNat must demonstrate that the

Complaint was objectively unreasonable at the time it was made, or that the litigation was

conducted in bad faith, vexatiously, or for an improper purpose. The record here does not support

such a finding.

The Complaint was not dismissed on the pleadings, nor did AmeriNat move to dismiss at

the outset of the case. Instead, AmeriNat served discovery requests, including requests for

admission, to which Mr. Chaney failed to respond. As a result, those requests were deemed

admitted by operation of Rule 36, and AmeriNat thereafter prevailed on summary judgment based

on those admissions. While Mr. Chaney’s failure to participate in discovery was improper and

ultimately dispositive, that failure does not establish that the lawsuit was frivolous when filed or

that Mr. Chaney acted in bad faith in initiating the Complaint.

AmeriNat had procedural mechanisms available to address Mr. Chaney’s failure to respond

to discovery requests while the case was pending. For example, AmeriNat could have moved to

compel responses or sought appropriate relief under Rule 37 but did not do so. Relief there could

have included an award of attorney’s fees. AmeriNat instead elected to proceed directly to

summary judgment based on deemed admissions. Although Mr. Chaney’s failure to respond to

discovery and to oppose the instant motion is concerning, the Court must tether any sanction award

to a specific finding of sanctionable conduct supported by the record. While AmeriNat’s strategic

approach to this litigation was lawful, ethical, and, ultimately, successful, it did not create a record

that supports sanctions under Rule 11. On the record presented, the Court cannot conclude that

Mr. Chaney’s claims were objectively baseless at the time of filing or that Mr. Chaney litigated

this matter in bad faith.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERD that AmeriNat’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on March 30, 2026.

S

SCOTT D. JOHNSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE