United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J.
AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel has been ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). The underlying action was remanded on January 28, 2014 for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants. (ECF No. 17). This Court sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) ordered plaintiff’s counsel to show cause as to what investigation, research or facts plaintiff’s counsel relied on to support the contention that jurisdiction in this Court was proper in opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction on January 27, 2014. (ECF No. 15).
Having failed to respond to the Court’s Order of January 27, 2014 for more than one month, plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to appear for a hearing on March 11, 2014. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff’s counsel appeared and was apologetic, but was unprepared to respond to the show cause order. (ECF No. 20). The Court granted plaintiff’s counsel leave to file a responsive letter by March 14, 2014. (ECF No. 20). On March 18, 2014 this Court received a letter from plaintiff’s counsel stating that the private investigation firm Atlantic Investigations LLC provided a report listing the plaintiff’s address in Pennsylvania. The letter does not indicate any facts or research supporting personal jurisdiction over defendants in this Court.
Given that plaintiff’s counsel has been provided numerous opportunities to show what investigation, research or facts supported his representations to this Court and has failed to identify any, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s counsel, Conrad J. Benedetto, Esquire, shall pay a sanction in the amount of the attorney’s fees and costs defendants accrued in filing their motion to remand the action. Defendants’ counsel shall submit a fee petition ...