SHANNON FATTA, Plaintiff v. M & M PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant
Case Details
- Citation
- 221 N.C. App. 369
- Judge(s)
- Judges HUNTER, JR., Robert N. and BEASLEY concur.
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- North Carolina
- Circuit
- 4th Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of M&M Properties Management on plaintiff's Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) and wrongful termination claims, finding that although plaintiff established a prima facie case of protected activity and temporal proximity, defendant presented legitimate non-retaliatory grounds for termination (poor job performance noted from the beginning of training) that plaintiff failed to rebut as pretext.
Excerpt
SHANNON FATTA, Plaintiff v. M & M PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant No. COA11-1397 (Filed 19 June 2012) Employer and Employee — Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act — wrongful termination The trial court did not err in a Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act and wrongful termination case by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant. Although plaintiff contended that the paperwork related to plaintiffs poor performance was generated subsequent to plaintiffs report of an injury and threat to file a workers’ compensation claim, plaintiff was unable to overcome defendant’s evidence that it was plaintiff’s poor job performance noted at the very beginning of his training and throughout his employment that led to his termination. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 10 March 2011 by Judge Christopher M. Collier in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 March 2012. Shannon Fatta, pro se plaintiff-appellant. Fisher & Phillips, LLP, by Margaret M. Kingston, for defendantappellee. BRYANT, Judge. Where the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act and wrongful discharge claims, we affirm the order of the trial court. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiff Shannon Fatta was employed by defendant M&M Properties Management, Inc., from 18 January 2010 through 7 February 2010 as a property manager of Value Place Hotel in Shelby, North Carolina. Plaintiff alleged the following: on 21 January 2010, he was injured while cleaning a room as a part of his training; on 2 February 2010, he notified defendant of his injury; on 3 February 2010, defendant issued plaintiff a first and final written disciplinary documentation; on 7 February 2010, defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment; on 12 February 2010, plaintiff was diagnosed with having a hernia by a doctor in Statesville, North Carolina; and that same day — 12 February 2010, five days after his termination, plaintiff filed a worker’s compensation claim, Form 18, with the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a REDA complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor (“NCDOL”). On 4 May 2010, plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter from the NCDOL. On 6 July 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging several causes of action relating to the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”) and wrongful termination in violation of North Carolina public policy. On 18 February 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. Following a hearing held on 28 February 2011, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. From this order, plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff presents the following issues on appeal: whether the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding (I) plaintiff’s REDA claim for his work injury; and (II) plaintiff’s corresponding wrongful discharge claim. Because these arguments are closely related, we will address them together. Standard of Review “Summary judgment when sought ‘shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Majestic Cinema Holdings, LLC v. High Point Cinema, LLC, 191 N.C. App. 163, 165, 662 S.E.2d 20, 22 (2008) (citation omitted). “[T]he trial court is required to view the facts and permissible inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. All well pleaded factual allegations in the nonmoving party’s pleadings are taken as true____” Rose v. Guilford County, 60 N.C. App. 170, 173, 298 S.E.2d 200, 202 (1982) (citation omitted). However, the movant has the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. The movant can meet the burden by either: 1) Proving that an essential element of the opposing party’s claim is nonexistent; or 2) Showing through discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence sufficient to support an essential element of his claim nor [evidence] sufficient to surmount an affirmative defense to his claim. Noblot v. Timmons, 177 N.C. App. 258, 261, 628 S.E.2d 413, 414 (2006) (citation omitted). “On appeal, an order allowing summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Carson v. Grassmann, 182 N.C. App. 521, 523, 642 S.E.2d 537, 539 (2007) (citation omitted). I and II Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant where there were genuine issues of material fact surrounding his REDA claim and corresponding wrongful discharge claim. “The North Carolina [REDA] prohibits discrimination or retaliation against an employee for filing a worker’s compensation claim.” Wiley v. UPS, Inc., 164 N.C. App. 183, 186, 594 S.E.2d 809, 811 (2004) (citation omitted). North Carolina General Statutes, section 95-241(a)(l)(a), provides that [n]o person shall discriminate or take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee in good faith does or threatens to do any of the following: (1) File a claim or complaint, initiate any inquiry, investigation, inspection, proceeding or other action, or testify or provide information to any person with respect to any of the following: a. Chapter 97 of the General Statutes [(Workers’ Compensation Act)]. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(l)(a) (2011) (emphasis added). “[A] plaintiff may pursue both a statutory claim under REDA and a common law wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of REDA.” White v. Cochran, - N.C. App. - , -, 716 S.E.2d 420, 426 (2011). In bringing a REDA claim, a plaintiff “may either proceed using direct evidence or may rely on inferential proof’ under a burden-shifting scheme. Lilly v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 302 F. Supp. 2d 471, 481 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “Under the burden-shifting model, plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case.” Id. To accomplish this, plaintiff must show: “(1) that he exercised his rights as listed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a), (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that the alleged retaliatory action was taken because the employee exercised his rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a).” Wiley, 164 N.C. App. at 186, 594 S.E.2d at 811. If plaintiff presents a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to “show that there was a valid reason for any actions it took regarding him.” Lilly, 302 F. Supp. 2d at 481 (citations omitted). Once defendant meets this burden, “plaintiff then has to demonstrate that the apparently valid reason was actually a pretext for discrimination.” Id. Plaintiff contends he was clearly engaged in a protected activity pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 95-241(a) when he notified Tony Cuomo, defendant’s director of operations who oversaw plaintiff’s training, that “he may intend to file a claim for workers’ compensation.” Defendant, on the other hand, relying on Whitings v. Wolfson Casing Corp., 173 N.C. App. 218, 618 S.E.2d 750 (2005), asserts that the action of filing a workers’ compensation claim is the activity that triggers REDA protection. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s statements do no more than forecast a potential action and do not by themselves warrant REDA protection. Defendant’s reliance is misplaced. In Whitings, our Court held that the plaintiff’s request that her employer pay for a medical evaluation of a work-related injury did not constitute a protected activity under REDA. We also concluded that because the plaintiff failed “to allege the filing of a workers’ compensation claim at any time either prior or subsequent to her discharge, [the] plaintiff ha[d] failed to plead that she engaged in a legally protected activity.” Id. at 223, 618 S.E.2d at 754. In the instant case, plaintiff stated in his affidavit that he notified Cuomo of his work-related injury on 2 February 2010; told Cuomo that “before reporting the injury to workers’ compensation I wanted to make sure it was not simply a pulled muscle that would go away[;]” and informed Cuomo that he would “file the appropriate paperwork to initiate a claim once I confirm the nature of the injury.” On 3 February 2010, plaintiff received a first and final written warning from defendant; and on 7 February 2010, defendant terminated plaintiff stating “Lack of Demonstrated Leadership” as the reason. Five days after being terminated by defendant, plaintiff filed a worker’s compensation claim. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff and taking all of his factual allegations as true, we hold the allegations are sufficient to support the first two elements of a prima facie case: that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 95-241(a) by threatening to file a workers’ compensation claim; and that he suffered from the adverse employment action of termination. To satisfy the third prong in establishing a prima facie case, “a plaintiff may present evidence of close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action, or a pattern of conduct.” Smith v. Computer Task Group, Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 603, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2008) (citation omitted); see also Johnson v. Trustees of Durham Tech. Cmty. Coll., 139 N.C. App. 676, 682, 535 S.E.2d 357, 361 (2000). “[M]erely a closeness in time between the filing of a discrimination charge and an employer’s firing an employee is sufficient to make a prima facie case of causality.” Shoaf v. Kimberly-Clark Corp, 294 F. Supp. 2d 746, 756 (M.D.N.C. 2003). Here, plaintiff demonstrated that he was terminated from employment five days after informing defendant of his work-related injury and of his intention to file a worker’s compensation claim, thereby fulfilling the last element of his prima facie case. “The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” N.C. Dept. of Correction v. Gibson, 308 N.C. 131, 138, 301 S.E.2d 78, 83 (1983) (citation omitted). Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, “the employer’s burden is satisfied if he simply explains what he has done or produces evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons.” Id. (citation omitted). Defendant’s President and Chief Operating Officer Glenn McFarland, stated in his affidavit that shortly after plaintiff began training on 18 January 2010, McFarland observed plaintiff’s poor job performance. During the week of 25 January 2010, McFarland, defendant’s district manager — Jenny Meyer, and defendant’s regional operations manager — Mark Caney, all communicated about plaintiff’s performance deficiencies. Specifically, they addressed “his fatigue and constant yawning throughout training[,]” and poor phone answering skills. Meyer stated in her affidavit that during training, defendant was difficult to train, appeared tired and fatigued throughout training, was not assertive at the front desk, and failed to understand cleanliness standards taught during training. Meyer stated that her concerns about defendant’s performance began on the first day he trained with her, 25 January 2010. During the first week of training, Meyer, McFarland, and Caney agreed to issue defendant a written Corrective Action and planned on issuing it on 3 February 2010. Defendant’s written warning to plaintiff explained that plaintiff had been late for work on several occasions, had been taking an excessive number of breaks from work each day, failed to demonstrate that he had learned defendant’s workplace standards, and that plaintiff’s lack of leadership was a concern to defendant. In plaintiff’s termination letter, defendant stated that plaintiffs lack of demonstrated leadership, reflected through his tardiness during training, lack of demonstrated initiative, dealings with challenging customers, phone skills, and inability to embrace defendant’s concepts versus trying to incorporate aspects of full service hotels, were the reason supporting plaintiff’s termination. Based on the foregoing, defendant has demonstrated several legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for plaintiff’s termination. This is sufficient to successfully rebut plaintiff’s prima facie case. “Plaintiff now bears the burden of proving that [defendant's proffered reason was mere pretext for retaliation by showing ‘both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason’ for the challenged conduct.” Shoaf 294 F. Supp. 2d at 757-58 (citation omitted) (stating that plaintiff “cannot rely on temporal proximity alone to establish pretext.”). In determining the suitability of summary judgment in this type of case, our United States Supreme Court has stated the following: Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. Those include the strength of the plaintiff’s prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer’s explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer’s case and that properly may be considered on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148-49, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105, 120-21 (2000). “[I]t is not enough ... to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.” Enoch v. Alamance County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 164 N.C. App. 233, 242, 595 S.E.2d 744, 752 (2004) (citing Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 119). In the present case, plaintiff asserts that he can establish pretext through circumstantial evidence and temporal proximity. Plaintiff was terminated five days after reporting his work-related injury to Cuomo. Plaintiff argues he was given a first and final written warning on 3 February 2010, one day after he informed defendant of his injury; that he was given permission to sit down, but was terminated in part for sitting down; that on 3 February 2010, after speaking with another manager-in-training, plaintiff believed his paycheck was withheld while other managers were paid; that defendant did not offer to provide treatment for plaintiff’s injury; and that after plaintiff’s termination, defendant posted online an open position for property manager that had an additional job requirement of the ability to perform housekeeping functions. Moreover, plaintiff argues that all the paperwork relating to plaintiffs poor performance was generated after plaintiff reported his injury and made a threat to file a workers’ compensation claim. Plaintiff contends that the foregoing evidence creates genuine issues of material fact regarding pretext. With the exception of plaintiff’s argument that all paperwork relating to plaintiff’s poor performance was generated subsequent to plaintiff’s report of his injury and threat to file a workers’ compensation claim, none of plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence establishes that defendant’s stated grounds for plaintiff’s termination were false. Further, plaintiff does not address defendant’s explanation for why defendant fired him. As to plaintiff’s evidence concerning the absence of documented evidence predating his injury report, affidavits from defendant’s employees indicate their observations of and discussions surrounding plaintiff’s poor job performance, which poor performance was noted at the very beginning of his training and throughout his employment. We note that “a plaintiff’s own assertions of discrimination in and of themselves are insufficient to counter substantial evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for an adverse employment action. It is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not the self-assessment of the plaintiff.” Shoaf, 294 F. Supp. 2d at 758 (quotations and citations omitted). “Even in discrimination cases where motive and intent are critical to the analysis, summary judgment may be appropriate if the non-moving party rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences and unsupported speculation.” Id. at 759 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Here, plaintiff relies on weak inferences and unsupported speculation; plaintiff is unable to overcome defendant’s evidence that it was plaintiff’s poor, deficient job performance that led to his termination. While plaintiff attempts to meet his burden with conclusory allegations, he does not establish that defendant’s stated reason for termination was false or a pretext for illegal discrimination. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the pretext issue. See Enoch, 164 N.C. App. at 243, 595 S.E.2d at 752 (“[I]t is not enough ... to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Affirmed. Judges HUNTER, JR., Robert N. and BEASLEY concur.
Similar Rulings
SHANNON FATTA v. M & M PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC. COA12-694 Filed 4 December 2012 1. Pretrial Proceedings — motion to strike — motion for sanctions The trial court did not err in an action relating to the Retaliatory Employee Discrimination Act and wrongful termination by granting defendant’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions against plaintiff. The trial court entered detailed and thorough findings of fact regarding the allegations made by plaintiff against defendant and against the trial judge, the facts as entered by the trial court were supported by the record, and the conclusions of law were fully supported by the findings of fact. 2. Pretrial Proceedings — motion for sanctions — improper purpose The trial court did not err in an action relating to the Retaliatory Employee Discrimination Act and wrongful termination by granting sanctions against plaintiff pursuant to Rule 11(a). There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was filed for an improper purpose. 3. Pretrial Proceedings — Rule 11 sanction — gatekeeper provision — no abuse of discretion The trial court did not abuse its discretion in an action relating to the Retaliatory Employee Discrimination Act and wrongful termination by entering the Rule 11 sanction of a “gatekeeper” provision against plaintiff. The trial court’s order explained the court’s reasons for entering the sanctions against plaintiff, the gatekeeper provision was narrowly tailored and limited in scope, and plaintiff was provided an opportunity to be heard and had notice that the trial court intended to impose a gatekeeper provision. Appeal by plaintiff from orders entered 4 January 2012 by Judge Christopher M. Collier in Iredell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 October 2012. Shannon Fatta pro se plaintiff-appellant. Fisher & Phillips, LLP, by Mason G. Alexander, for defendantappellee. BRYANT, Judge. Where the trial court did not err by granting defendant’s Rule 12(f) motion to strike and Rule 11 motion for sanctions against plaintiff, we affirm the orders of the trial court. Facts and Procedural History The case before us originates from an action commenced on 6 July 2010 by plaintiff Shannon Fatta against defendant M & M Properties Management, Inc. alleging several causes of action relating to the Retaliatory Employee Discrimination Act, and wrongful termination. On 10 March 2011, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and amend summary judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure which was denied on 18 April 2011 following a hearing. On 20 April 2011, plaintiff appealed to our Court, and we affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order in Fatta v. M & M Properties Management, Inc., ___ N.C. App. _, 727 S.E.2d 595 (2012) (“Fatta I”). On 13 July 2011, three months after plaintiff noted an appeal in this matter to our Court, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rules 11, 26(g), and 37(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil procedure against defendant and defendant’s counsel, Margaret M. Kingston (“Kingston”) of Fisher & Phillips LLP and a motion for relief from the 10 March 2011 summary judgment order entered in favor of defendant pursuant to Rules 60(b)(1), 60(b)(3), and 60(b)(6) (“Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment”). Plaintiff alleged numerous discovery violations and other misconduct by defendant and Kingston. Plaintiff filed an amended “Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment” on 26 September 2011. On 12 August 2011, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s “Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment” and a motion for sanctions against plaintiff. Following a hearing held on 14 October 2011, the trial court made numerous findings of fact including the following: Plaintiff has attempted to create a discovery dispute. Plaintiff’s arguments about discovery violations are improper and lacking in a factual basis. The parties engaged in extensive discovery in this case, including correspondence between the parties about the adequacy of objections made to certain discovery responses. Plaintiff never filed a motion to compel or any other discovery motion. He raised his discovery arguments for the first time in his “Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment”, after summary judgment was granted and his claims were dismissed. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review a potential discovery dispute between the parties. The Court entered an Order granting summary judgment to Defendant and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety on March 10, 2011. Plaintiff has appealed that decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Although Plaintiff’s discovery challenges are not proper, this Court will briefly address Plaintiff’s arguments that the discovery violations amounted to fraud under Rule 60. The Court finds no factual support for Plaintiff’s claim of discovery violations or misconduct regarding this allegation. In bringing these challenges at this late date and without legal or factual support, Plaintiff has violated Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, Plaintiffs discovery allegations are frivolous and insufficient as a matter of law and should be stricken from the record pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds that these allegations are frivolous. Plaintiff has no facts or evidence to support these allegations. Plaintiff has no legal authority to support these allegations. Plaintiff relies upon his own affidavit, which contains conclusory and factually inaccurate assertions about the parties’ arguments at the summary judgment hearing and the undersigned’s decision following the hearing. Plaintiff made the unsupported assertion that two of Defendant’s summary judgment affiants, Jenny Meyer and Glenn McFarland, misrepresented facts in their affidavits in an effort to mislead the Court. The Court finds that this is an outrageous assertion without any facts in support. In addition, the Court finds that Ms. Meyer and Mr. McFarland have submitted additional affidavits under oath attesting to the accuracy of their prior affidavits. Plaintiff also made the unsupported assertion that Defendant and counsel for Defendant intentionally misrepresented facts and case law on his claims and committed fraud on the court. The Court finds no legal or factual basis for Plaintiffs allegations of fraud and Rule 11 violations in connection with this Court’s summary judgment ruling and subsequent ruling on Plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion. The Court finds that these are outrageous allegations by Plaintiff. In raising these allegations in Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff has violated Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The undersigned presided over the pretrial conference, the summary judgment hearing, the hearing on Plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion, and the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions in this matter. The undersigned has observed the conduct of the parties and reviewed the documents filed and submitted to the Court by the parties. Plaintiff’s suggestion that the undersigned was part of a fraudulent scheme with counsel for Defendant is outrageous. The Court finds that Plaintiff has filed and pursued his “Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment” alleging fraud and Rule 11 violations against Defendant and counsel for Defendant without any factual or legal support. The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion and the manner in which Plaintiff pursued his Motion has been intended to harass counsel for Defendant and to needlessly increase the cost of this litigation for Defendant.. . . The Court finds that Plaintiff has made some very serious allegations against Defendant and counsel for Defendant, and that these allegations of fraud and misconduct are not supported by any facts or law. Due to Plaintiff’s pursuit of this frivolous Motion, this Court finds that the sanction of a gatekeeper provision is necessary and appropriate. The Court finds that Plaintiff has exhibited conduct in this matter showing such a disregard for the rules of law and procedure which, if he were licensed as an attorney, would require and demand reporting him to the North Carolina State Bar questioning his fitness to practice. The Court finds that Plaintiffs baseless allegations, Motion, and materials in support of the Motion were filed and pursued for the improper purpose of harassing the opposing party and opposing party’s counsel, and costing the opposing party unnecessary time and expense in responding to these allegations and'filings. This Court has the inherent power to impose such special limitations as are reasonably necessary for the proper administration of justice, including the authority to regulate and discipline persons who appear before the Court to prevent impropriety and to provide an appropriate remedy to meet the circumstances of the case. The nature of Plaintiff’s conduct and the extraordinary circumstances of this matter require that the Court place special limitations on Plaintiff’s access to the Iredell County Superior Court and enter a gatekeeper order. The trial court then made the following pertinent conclusions of law: The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a discovery dispute but has considered Plaintiff’s discovery allegations in connection with his Rule 60 allegations of fraud and Rule 11 allegations against Defendant and [Kingston]. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown no discovery violations. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff’s discovery allegations are frivolous and lacking in any factual and legal support. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has shown no Rule 11 violation, misrepresentation, or other alleged misconduct amounting to fraud or fraud on the Court by Defendant or [Kingston], The Court further concludes that there is no factual or legal support for any of the fraud, Rule 11, or other misconduct allegations against Defendant and [Kingston] and these allegations are frivolous. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Sanctions;, Motion for Relief from Judgment” is frivolous and insufficient as a matter of law and should be stricken pursuant to Rule 12 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Motion is not well grounded in fact or law and appears to have been filed in order to harass Defendant and [Kingston] and to needlessly increase the costs of this litigation. In signing and filing this Motion, Plaintiff has violated Rule 11[.] The Court concludes that, due to the very serious nature of the allegations in Plaintiffs Motion and which are unsupported by any facts or law, the sanction of a gatekeeper provision and the sanction of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Defendant in defending Plaintiff’s Motion are necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, in a 4 January 2012 order, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions against plaintiff. The trial court also entered a gatekeeping order and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to defendant. From these orders, plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff presents the following issues on appeal: (I) whether the trial court erred by allowing defendant’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions against plaintiff where the motion was improper pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 7(b)(1); (II) whether the trial court erred by granting sanctions against plaintiff pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 11(a); and, (III) whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering the sanction of a gatekeeper provision. / In his first argument, plaintiff contends the trial court erred by granting defendant’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions against plaintiff where defendant’s motions violated N.C.S.S. § 1A-1, Rule 7(b)(1). N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 7(b)(1) (2011) states the following: An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial or at a session at which a cause is on the calendar for that session, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor; and shall set forth the relief or order sought. The requirement of writing is fulfilled if the motion is stated in a written notice of the hearing of the motion. Id. (emphasis added). The comments to Rule 7(b)(1) states: The 2000 amendment conforms the North Carolina rule to federal Rule 7(b). The federal courts do not apply the particularity requirement as a procedural technicality to deny otherwise meritorious motions. Rather, the federal courts apply the rule to protect parties from prejudice, to assure that opposing parties can comprehend the basis for the motion and have a fair opportunity to respond. Id. cmt. Rule 11(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure reads that [t]he signature of . . . [a] party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 11(a) (2011). Rule 12(f) states that “[u]pon motion made by a party . . . the judge may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12© (2011). Here, defendant’s motion to strike and motion for sanctions against plaintiff stated the following: Plaintiff’s most recent Motions (“Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment”) are frivolous and insufficient as a matter of law. The Motions are not well grounded in fact or law. Also, Plaintiff’s intent in filing these Motions is to harass counsel for Defendant and to cause needless increase in the cost of litigation. In signing and filing these Motions, Plaintiff has violated Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, Plaintiff’s Motions contain irrelevant and outrageous assertions that should be stricken pursuant to Rule 12© of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff argues that defendant’s motion “does not point to what is frivolous or what is insufficient as a matter of law[,]” “does not provide how Plaintiff filing for sanctions or relief from judgment constitutes harassment or other improper purposes[,]” and that “[t]here is no indication of what is irrelevant, what is outrageous, or why something is even considered outrageous.” While we disagree with plaintiff’s characterizations, we note that our task is to review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to strike and motion for sanctions. (Rule 12© motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Reese v. Brooklyn Vill, LLC,_N.C. App._,_, 707 S.E.2d 249, 260 (2011); Rule 11(a) motions are reviewed de novo. “The appropriateness of a particular sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Bledsoe v. Johnson, 357 N.C. 133, 138, 579 S.E.2d 379, 381-82 (2003) (citation omitted)). Defendant’s motion for sanctions cited Rule 11 and specified that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions was “frivolous and insufficient as a matter of law.” In its consideration of the allegations, the trial court found that plaintiff had “attempted to create a discovery dispute” and that plaintiff brought his “challenges at this late date and without legal or factual support.” The trial court found that plaintiff had relied on his own affidavit “which contains conclusory and factually inaccurate assertions” surrounding the summary judgment hearing at which the trial judge (the Honorable Christopher M. Collier) had presided. Based upon the motions and other evidence of record, the trial court concluded that plaintiff’s improper purpose in filing these motions was to harass the opposing party and its counsel, and to cause the opposing party unnecessary time and expense in responding to plaintiff’s allegations, a needless increase in the cost of litigation. Defendant’s motion to strike cited Rule 12© and specified that plaintiff’s motions “contained] irrelevant and outrageous assertions[.]” The trial court found that plaintiff’s allegations were “baseless” and concluded that plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated a “disregard for the rules of law and procedure[.]” In addition, defendant’s motion for sanctions and motion to strike specifically stated the relief requested: “[t]hat the Court strike from the record Plaintiff’s ‘Motion for Sanctions; Motion for Relief from Judgment’ ”; “[t]hat the Court enter • an Order determining that Plaintiff’s Motions are not well grounded in law or in fact and are intended to harass Defendant and counsel for Defendant;” and “[t]hat Defendant recover all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense of Plaintiff’s frivolous Motions[.]” See Lane v. Winn-Dixie Charlotte, Inc., 169 N.C. App. 180, 609 S.E.2d 456 (2005) (holding that the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss was stated with sufficient particularly as to the grounds alleged and sufficiently set forth the relief sought, as required by Rule 7(b)(1)). The trial court entered detailed and thorough findings of fact regarding the very serious and troubling allegations made by plaintiff against defendant and against the trial judge. The facts as entered by the trial court are supported by the record. Further, the conclusions of law are fully supported by the findings of fact. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motions. Plaintiff’s argument is overruled. II Next, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting sanctions against plaintiff pursuant to Rule 11(a). “This Court exercises de novo review of the question of whether to impose Rule 11 sanctions.” Dodd v. Steele, 114 N.C. App. 632, 635, 442 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1994). “There are three parts to a Rule 11 analysis: (1) factual sufficiency, (2) legal sufficiency, and (3) improper purpose. A violation of any one of these requirements mandates the imposition of sanctions under Rule 11.” Battle v. Sabates, 198 N.C. App. 407, 425, 681 S.E.2d 788, 800 (2009) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). “When reviewing the decision of a trial court to impose sanctions under Rule 11, an appellate court must determine whether the findings of fact of the trial court are supported by sufficient evidence, whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings of fact, and whether the conclusions of law support the judgment.” Johns v. Johns, 195 N.C. App. 201, 206, 672 S.E.2d 34, 38 (2009) (citation omitted). Because we hold that the record supports that plaintiff violated the improper purpose prong, we find it unnecessary to address the other prongs. See Brown v. Hurley, 124 N.C. App. 377, 382, 477 S.E.2d 234, 238 (1996) (“Even if a complaint is well-grounded in fact and in law, it may nonetheless violate the improper purpose prong of Rule 11.”). Under Rule 11, an objective standard is used to determine whether a paper has been interposed for an improper purpose, with the burden on the movant to prove such improper purpose. Because an objective standard is employed, an improper purpose may be inferred from the alleged offender’s objective behavior. In assessing that behavior, we look at the totality of the circumstances. Johns, 195 N.C. at 212, 672 S.E.2d at 42 (citations and quotations omitted). “An improper purpose is ‘any purpose other than one to vindicate rights ... or to put claims of right to a proper test.” Mack v. Moore, 107 N.C. App. 87, 93, 418 S.E.2
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.