The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Belle Plaine

• Decision Date: 24 May 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-0336 (WMW/JFD)
• Parties: The Satanic Temple, Inc., Plaintiff, v. City of Belle Plaine, MN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

The Satanic Temple, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
City of Belle Plaine, MN, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-0336 (WMW/JFD)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 24, 2022

ORDER

WILHELMINA M. WRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant City of Belle Plain, MN's (Belle Plaine) motion for attorneys' fees. (Dkt. 49.) Plaintiff The Satanic Temple, Inc. (TST), opposes Belle Plaine's motion. For the reasons addressed below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

In this case and in a related case filed in 2019, TST alleged that Belle Plaine violated its rights under federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Minnesota Constitution and should be held liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In TST's first-filed case, this Court dismissed TST's constitutional and statutory claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine (Satanic Temple I), 475 F.Supp.3d 950 (D. Minn. 2020). Subsequently, the Court granted Belle Plaine's motion for summary judgment as to TST's remaining promissory-estoppel claim in Satanic Temple I. The Court also affirmed the magistrate

1

judge's order denying TST's motion for leave to amend its complaint to re-assert its dismissed constitutional claims and add new constitutional claims.

After the magistrate judge denied TST's motion to amend its complaint in Satanic Temple I, TST commenced this second lawsuit in February 2021. See Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Belle Plaine (Satanic Temple II), No. 21-cv-0336, Dkt. 1 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2021). In Satanic Temple II, TST asserted the same constitutional claims that TST unsuccessfully attempted to assert in its proposed amended complaint in Satanic Temple I. The Court granted Belle Plaine's motion to dismiss in Satanic Temple II, concluding that TST's claims were barred by res judicata based on Satanic Temple I.

The Court also granted Belle Plaine's motion for sanctions against TST's counsel in this case. The Court concluded that the filing of Satanic Temple II was a frivolous attempt to circumvent the rulings in Satanic Temple I and wasted judicial resources. The Court ordered Belle Plaine to file the pending motion and supporting evidence as to the amount of attorneys' fees Belle Plaine incurred responding to the complaint and seeking sanctions in Satanic Temple II.

ANALYSIS

I. Propriety of Monetary Sanctions

As a threshold matter, TST disputes whether monetary sanctions are warranted, arguing that the Court's September 15, 2021 Order, which granted Belle Plaine's motion for sanctions, did not explain why nonmonetary sanctions would be insufficient to deter similar future misconduct.

2

TST's argument challenging the propriety of monetary sanctions appears to be a request for reconsideration of the Court's September 15, 2021 Order. TST's request is procedurally improper. This District's Local Rules prohibit filing a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of the court. See LR 7.1(j) (“Except with the court's prior permission, a party must not file a motion to reconsider.”). A party “must first file and serve a letter of no more than two pages requesting such permission.” Id. TST has neither sought nor obtained the Court's permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court, therefore, construes TST's argument as an implicit request for permission to file a motion to reconsider.

A party may receive permission to file a motion for reconsideration only by showing “compelling circumstances.” Id. “Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987)). A motion for reconsideration cannot be employed to introduce evidence or arguments that could have been made, or tender new legal theories for the first time. See id.

TST contends that the Court's September 15, 2021 Order, which awarded attorneys' fees to Belle Plaine as a sanction under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P., is legally erroneous because the Court did not address whether nonmonetary sanctions would be insufficient. In doing so, TST expressly “acknowledge[s] that the Court has already rejected these lines of argument.” As such, TST concedes that it is attempting to repeat

3

arguments it previously made, which is an improper basis for seeking reconsideration. See Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 414.

Moreover, TST has not identified a manifest error of law in the Court's September 15, 2021 Order. As this Court observed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit repeatedly and unequivocally has held that “a district court abuses its discretion by refusing to sanction a plaintiff and his counsel under Rule 11 for filing and maintaining a frivolous lawsuit when the plaintiff seeks to relitigate claims [the plaintiff] had been denied leave to serve against the same defendant in an earlier lawsuit.” Pro. Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. v. KPMG LLP, 345 F.3d 1030, 1033 (8th Cir. 2003); King v. Hoover Grp., Inc., 958 F.2d 219, 223 (8th Cir. 1992) (concluding that “the district court erred in determining that sanctions and costs were inappropriate” because “counsel should have realized that King II was barred by King I because of the identity of the facts and issues”); accord Landscape Props., Inc. v. Whisenhunt, 127 F.3d 678, 683 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court's award of Rule 11 sanctions in the same circumstances).

As this Court previously acknowledged, a sanction imposed under Rule 11 “must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(4). When applying this standard, a “district court has discretion to impose non-monetary sanctions, but it is not required to do so.” Kirk Cap. Corp. v. Bailey, 16 F.3d 1485, 1490 (8th Cir. 1994). Although Rule 11 “de-emphasizes monetary sanctions and discourages direct payouts to the opposing party, the rule also recognizes that under unusual circumstances . . . deterrence

4

may be ineffective unless the sanction not only requires the person violating the rule to make a monetary payment, but also directs that some or all of this payment be made to those injured by the violation.” Murphy v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 859 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1022 (D. Minn. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rule 11 expressly provides that “if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, ” sanctions may include “an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(4).

In its September 15, 2021 Order, this Court observed that, after the magistrate judge denied TST's motion to amend its complaint in Satanic Temple I, TST's recourse was to appeal that decision, not start a new lawsuit. But TST did not even attempt to pursue its proper recourse, the Court observed. Instead, TST filed a second frivolous lawsuit. Notably, TST filed its second lawsuit after the magistrate judge in Satanic Temple I had expressly rejected this strategy, finding in a January 26, 2021 Order that Belle Plaine “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [TST] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.” TST did not appeal that finding, but instead blatantly disregarded it.

TST's misconduct resulted in a waste of resources, both for Belle Plaine and for the Court. And TST's misconduct in filing Satanic Temple II occurred after TST had disregarded multiple court-imposed deadlines in Satanic Temple I, demonstrated an extraordinary lack of diligence in attempting to comply with the deadlines in Satanic

5

Temple I, and made an untimely attempt in Satanic Temple I to baselessly reassert claims that the Court had dismissed. TST's behavior, including its repeated disregard of court orders, suggests that a mere reprimand from the Court would be insufficient to deter similar misconduct in the future. As such, the Court exercised its discretion and determined that an award of attorneys' fees, limited to those reasonably incurred in responding to the frivolous complaint in Satanic Temple II and seeking sanctions, is necessary to deter repetition of the same or similar misconduct. The Eighth Circuit has affirmed the imposition of monetary sanctions in analogous circumstances. See, e.g., Meyer v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 792 F.3d 923, 927-28 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming imposition of monetary sanction against plaintiff who attempted to evade preclusive effect of prior judgment); Landscape Props., 127 F.3d at 683-85 (same). TST has identified no manifest error of law or fact in this Court's similar determination here.

Accordingly, to the extent that TST implicitly requests permission to file a motion to reconsider the decision to impose monetary sanctions in the Court's September 15, 2021 Order, the request is denied.

II. Attorneys' Fees Amount

Belle Plaine contends that it reasonably incurred $33, 886.80 in attorneys' fees responding to the complaint and seeking sanctions in Satanic Temple II. Belle Plaine's request is limited to attorneys' fees and does not include disbursements or expenses. TST counters that Belle Plaine incurred no attorneys' fees because Belle Plaine has not

6

demonstrated that it, as opposed to its insurer, incurred such fees. In the alternative, TST argues that Belle Plaine's requested attorneys' fees amount is unreasonable.

A. Attorneys' Fees Incurred by Insurer

TST first argues that Belle Plaine cannot recover any attorneys' fees because Belle Plaine has not established that it incurred any fees. Because Belle Plaine's municipal liability is covered under an insurance policy,...