Fatta v. M & M Props. Mgmt., Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. COA12–694.,COA12–694.
• Citation: 735 S.E.2d 836
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Shannon FATTA, Plaintiff, v. M & M PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

735 S.E.2d 836

Shannon FATTA, Plaintiff,

v.M & M PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

No. COA12–694.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 4, 2012.

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, Charlotte, by Mason G. Alexander, for defendant-appellee.

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, Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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...