Bridgesvdiesel - Case Brief Civ Pro I 2019 PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief Civ Pro I 2019...

Description

Bridges v. Diesel Service, Inc. 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9429 (E.D. Pa. 1994) Parties:  

James Bridges, Plaintiff, Appellant Diesel Service, Inc., defendant, appellee

Facts: The plaintiff, Bridges, filed a suit against his previous employer, the defendant, filing age discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court dimissed the complaint because they failed to follow procedure and “exhaust administrative remedies.” The plaintiff failed to fine a charge against the company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) until after he filed the action under ADA. Now the defendant moves to sanction under Rule 11. Procedural History: Stated above Basis for the Dispute: The plaintiff’s attorney failed to follow rule 11. “litigants to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the law and facts before signing pleadings, written motions, and other documents… requires litigants to “stop and think” before initially making legal or factual contentions.” FRCP pg. 35 Issue: Should a plaintiff be sanctioned for failing to follow procedure and exhausting all other administrative remedies before filling this complaint? Parties Arguments: Plaintiff: Upon learning the rule the plaintiff wanted to have his action suspended, and let the defendant know of this error. Defendant: If the plaintiff attorney had done is job than they would have known to file with the EEOC prior to claim made under the ADA. Believes sanctions should be rewarded in the amount of attorneys fees. Holding: The court stated that the motion for the sanction is denied. The court is not condoning the actions of the attorney. Court’s reasoning: The court states that sanctions under rule 11 should only be enforced in the event that the claims made by the plaintiff have no merit and are frivolous. Lexis Analysis: OVERVIEW: The court determined that the employee failed to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) until after commencement of the action. The court noted that the filing of a charge with the EEOC was a condition precedent to maintenance of a discrimination suit under the ADA. The court chastised the employee's counsel for failing to conduct legal research before filing the complaint. However, the court denied the employer's motion for sanctions. The court reasoned that monetary sanctions were not necessary to deter future misconduct. The court noted that Rule 11 sanctions should be reserved for those exceptional circumstances where the claim asserted was patently unmeritorious or frivolous. The court further noted that the mistake in the present case was procedural rather than substantive....