Mendez v. Draha

182 F. Supp. 2d. 430 (D.N.J. 2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Samuel A. Malat, ('Malat') the attorney for the Ps, in this case, has an extensive history for violating Rule 11. In a prior case, it was concluded that Malat had 'conducted absolutely no legal research whatsoever regarding these claims at any time before or during the pendency of [the Carlino] litigation.' Malat was also sanctioned for filing a highly redundant, 160-page Complaint, rife with 'largely meritless allegations.' Ps filed a Complaint in this Court seeking damages, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 [sic], for violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as under other state and common law theories. The Complaint, signed by Samuel A. Malat, Esq., ('Malat') named twenty-nine different state and federal official Defendants, each sued in both their individual and official capacities, as well as a variety of institutional Defendants, ranging from the South Woods State Prison to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The allegations of the Complaint spanned 1,020 numbered paragraphs and covered 392 pages. The Complaint was not tabbed, nor did it contain an index or table of contents. Ronald L. Bollheimer, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, ('Bollheimer') wrote to Malat on behalf of the State Defendants invoking the 'safe harbor' provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). Malat was warned that D intended to move for sanctions under Rule 11 in the event Malat failed to correct what were, in Bollheimer's view, numerous flagrant violations of the Rule. The voluminous, largely duplicative Complaint appeared to be inconsistent with the requirement that a complaint contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitle to relief.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Many of the claims alleged in the Complaint also appeared to be frivolous. An extension of time was given to Malat until April 23, 2001, before Ds would proceed for sanctions. Ds filed this Motion to Strike and for Rule 11 Sanctions on April 24, 2001. Malat has made no response to the Motion in the eight months since it was filed and has never amended the Complaint.