Pillar Panama, S.A. v. DeLape et al, No. 4:2007cv01922 - Document 101 (S.D. Tex. 2008)

Court Description: OPINION on Safe Harbor Notice.(Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified.(jdav) (Scanned image replaced on 8/25/2008 with word-searchable pdf version) (dkelly, ). Modified on 8/25/2008 (dkelly, ).

Download PDF
Pillar Panama, S.A. v. DeLape et al Doc. 101 U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT Pillar Panama, S.A., Plaintiff, versus Francis DeLape, et al., Defendants. S OUTHERN D ISTRICT OF T EXAS § § § § § § § § § Civil Action H-07-1922 Opinion on Safe-Harbor Notice Pillar Panama, S.A., has objected that its notice of potential sanctions was defective. Pillar says that the defendants did not afford it an opportunity to dismiss its claims under the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. § 11(c)(2). At the initial hearing on September 4, 2007, this court expressed that the thirty-page complaint of Pillar was a trespass action and that it belonged in the Panamanian courts. Instead of appreciating that analysis, Pillar chose twice to amend its complaint without adding substantiating facts. At another hearing on December 13, 2007, the court allowed Pillar to defend the basis of its suit. It still could not. After finding that Pillar had a facially defective complaint, this court advised the parties that it might make an equitable cost adjustment under the malicious pleading rule. Mot. Hrg. 100:13-17, December 13, 2007. When he was asked if plaintiff s counsel had questions about that proposal, Mr. Lawrence Shapiro responded with I understand what the court has said. Id. at 100:16-17. In total, this court has supplied four opportunities for Pillar to respond to the defendants motions to dismiss twice orally and twice in writing. In turn, the defendants invested significant money and time to dissect Pillar s vague allegations and refute them with facts an investigative task Pillar was obliged to have done before filing suit. Pillar s conduct had an aura of sanctions even before this court first mentioned the meretriciousness of this suit. Id. at 90:23-24. Pillar has, therefore, had more than sufficient notice of impending sanctions from the court, obviating redundant warnings from the Dockets.Justia.com defendants. This procedural defense is just another example of Pillar s intransigence. See generally Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)(inherent power of court to sanction a party s intransigence). Pillar s objection that it had no notice of the sanctions is overruled. The award of sanctions measured by costs in the form of attorney s fees for the defendants will be confirmed. Signed on August 18, 2008, at Houston, Texas. Lynn N. Hughes United States District Judge -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.