Freeze v. Gallagher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 ERIC STEPHEN FREEZE, CASE NO. C23-1135JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, et al., Defendants.

Before the court is Plaintiff Eric Stephen Freeze’s “motion in limine to strike the Defendants’[1] pleadings, motions, and advocacy for pleadings and motions for violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11,” which the court construes as a motion for sanctions under Rule 11. (Mot. (Dkt. # 51).2) The court DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion.

20 1 Defendants are Elizabeth Gallagher, Ann G. Freeze Revocable Trust, Ronald L. Freeze Revocable Trust, James Massingale, Angela Massingale, and Jose T. Acuna.

2 The court exercises its discretion to decide the motion before the June 10, 2024 noting date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (directing district courts to administer the rules of procedure “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”).

1 Rule 11(c) imposes “stringent notice and filing requirements on parties seeking sanctions.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 677 (9th Cir. 2005). In particular, as Mr. Freeze acknowledges (see Memorandum (Dkt. # 52) at 2-3), Rule 11(c)(2) contains a “safe harbor” provision, which requires “that any motion for sanctions . . . be served on the offending party at least 21 days before the motion is filed with the court.” Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F.3d 870, 872 (9th Cir. 2014); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). The Ninth Circuit mandates “strict compliance with Rule 11’s safe harbor provision.” Id. Failure to strictly comply with the safe harbor provision bars an award of sanctions under Rule 11(c). See Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1998).

10 Here, Mr. Freeze has not demonstrated that he served a copy of his motion on Defendants 21 days before he filed his motion with the court. (See generally Mot.; Memorandum; Freeze Decl. (Dkt. # 53).) Because the Ninth Circuit does not authorize Rule 11 sanctions absent “strict compliance” with the safe harbor provision, see Islamic Shura Council, 757 F.3d at 872, the court DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. # 51) without prejudice to renewing the motion, if appropriate, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17 Dated this 21st day of May, 2024.

A 20 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge