United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NOS. 56,
58)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In
2018, Plaintiff Robert Carmack engaged attorney Andrew
Paterson to file this civil action against the City of
Detroit and Mayor Michael Duggan (among others). Paterson had
a “hard” time getting his “arms
around” Carmack’s story, and Paterson did not
“know whether [there was] support [for] any of [the]
stuff [Carmack said].” (11/29/2018 Hr’g Tr., ECF
No. 50, PageID. 900-901.) Yet Paterson filed this action
anyway. Paterson thereafter refused to concur in the
Defendants’ requests that he dismiss certain baseless
claims, violated an order of this Court prohibiting him from
taking discovery, and twice attempted to mislead the Court on
material matters. Paterson’s course of conduct warrants
the imposition of sanctions under the Court’s inherent
power. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in more detail
below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART the motions for sanctions filed by Mayor
Duggan, the City of Detroit, and the Detroit Building
Authority (the “DBA”) (see Motions, ECF
Nos. 56, 58).[1]
I
A
On
March 28, 2018, Paterson filed what he wrongly called a
Verified Complaint against Mayor Duggan, the City of Detroit,
and others.[2] (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Relevant
to Mayor Duggan and the City of Detroit:
• Count I alleged that Mayor Duggan, the City of
Detroit, and others retaliated against Carmack for
Carmack’s exercise of his First Amendment rights when
the Defendants took steps to demolish property Carmack
allegedly owned at 8124 Michigan Avenue (the “8124
Property”). (See Id . at ¶¶ 13-51,
PageID.4-12.);
• Count II alleged that the City of Detroit fraudulently
and unlawfully conveyed title to the 8124 Property to another
person in violation of state law. (See Id . at
¶¶ 81-94, PageID.18-20.);
• Count IV alleged that the City of Detroit fraudulently
and unlawfully conveyed title to the 8124 Property to another
person and took other actions related to the 8124 Property in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. (See Id . at
¶¶ 95-108, PageID.20-23.);
• Count V alleged that the City of Detroit
“unconstitutionally and unlawfully took physical
possession of [Carmack’s] property without Due Process
of law” and without providing Carmack a “Notice
to Quit” in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
(Id. at ¶111, PageID.23-24.);
• Count VI alleged that the City of Detroit committed a
trespass under state law when it “proceeded with the
unlawful demolition” of the 8124 Property.
(See id at ¶¶ 119-25,
PageID.25-26.);
• Count VII alleged that the City of Detroit converted
Carmack’s property in violation of Michigan common law.
(See id at ¶¶ 126-30, PageID. 27.);
• Count VIII alleged that the City of Detroit converted
Carmack’s property in violation of Michigan Compiled
Laws § 600.2919a. (See id at ¶¶
131-37, PageID.28-29.); and
• Count IX sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988. (See Id . at ¶¶ 138- 40,
PageID.29-30.)
On May
10, 2018, Mayor Duggan and the City Detroit filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
(See First Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6.) Before
filing that motion, their counsel held a
“conference” with Paterson. (Id.,
PageID.52.) During the conference, defense counsel explained
“the nature of the motion and its legal basis”
and “requested … concurrence [from Paterson] in
the relief sought” in the motion. (Id.)
Paterson refused to grant concurrence. (See id.)
In the
motion to dismiss, Mayor Duggan and the City of Detroit
argued that each of the counts of the Verified Complaint
described above failed as a matter of law for the following
reasons:
• Count I “fail[ed] to allege plausible facts to
show, directly or indirectly, that any action was
taken” by Mayor Duggan or the City of Detroit in
retaliation for Carmack’s alleged exercise of his First
Amendment rights. (Id., PageID.49.);
• Count I and Counts III through VIII failed to state a
cognizable claim because they were “premised upon
[Carmack’s] ownership” of the 8124 Property, and
Carmack did not own that property. (Id.,
PageID.51.);
• The Court did not have jurisdiction over
Carmack’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. (See id.);
• All claims premised on Carmack’s alleged
ownership of the 8124 Property were “barred by the
principles of res judicata.” (Id.) Mayor
Duggan and the City of Detroit explained that the Wayne
County Circuit Court had entered a judgment of foreclosure on
the 8124 Property that vested fee simple absolute in that
property in the Wayne County Treasurer. (See id,
PageID.51, 61.) They submitted a copy of the judgment as an
exhibit to the motion. (See Judgment of Foreclosure,
ECF No. 6-4.) They argued that because the judgment vested
title to the 8124 Property in the Wayne County Treasurer,
Carmack could not pursue claims based on his alleged
ownership of that property. (See First Mot. to
Dismiss, ECF No. 6, PageID.71.)
• The Court “lack[ed] jurisdiction to hear [the]
Fifth Amendment taking claims” in Counts IV and V of
the Verified Complaint because Carmack “ha[d] failed to
exhaust his state law remedy of inverse condemnation.”
(Id. at PageID.52.);
• The state-law tort claims in Counts VI, VII, and VIII
were barred by Michigan’s Government Tort Liability
Act, Michigan Compiled Laws § 691.1401 et seq. (See
id); and
• The claim for attorney’s fees failed under 42
U.S.C. § 1988 because that statute “provides a
remedy, not a cause of action.” (Id)
B
The
Court held a telephonic status conference with counsel to
discuss the motion to dismiss on June 6, 2018. (See
Notice to Appear, ECF No. 14.) During that conference, the
Court offered Paterson the opportunity to file an amended
complaint on Carmack’s behalf. The Court directed
Paterson to carefully review the claims made in the Verified
Complaint in light of the arguments that Mayor Duggan and the
City of Detroit raised in their motion to dismiss. The Court
further instructed Paterson to determine whether it was
appropriate to dismiss any of the claims brought in the
Verified Complaint. Finally, the Court told Paterson to
include in the amended complaint any additional factual
allegations that could support Carmack’s claims.
C
Paterson
filed what he wrongly called a Verified Amended Complaint on
Carmack’s behalf on June 20, 2018.[3] (See Am.
Compl., ECF No. 16.) In that pleading, Paterson re-asserted
each of the claims against Mayor Duggan and the City of
Detroit that were the subject of the initial motion to
dismiss described above. In many instances, Paterson repeated
the claims verbatim from the Verified Complaint; in others,
he made minor revisions.[4] Paterson made two revisions to the
Verified Amended Complaint that could reasonably be
considered substantive:
• Paterson named the DBA as a Defendant for the first
time; and
• Paterson added a claim against the City of Detroit,
Mayor Duggan, and the DBA titled “Supplemental State
Law Claim - Tortious Interference with Business Relationship
or ...