A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has imposed sanctions against a pro se serial litigant and ordered him to pay nearly $9,000 in legal fees to the defendant’s attorneys in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that the plaintiff’s “lack of candor” in attempting to relitigate issues already decided against him were frivolous.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Taggart v. New Century Financial Services can be accessed by clicking here.
Following a “long and contentious litigation,” summary judgment was awarded to the defendants in this FDCPA case. After the ruling, the plaintiff — representing himself — said he was not given the chance to be heard and a motion for reconsideration was granted. A full hearing was conducted and the judge ruled again in favor of the defendants, after which the plaintiff filed another motion for reconsideration, which just repeated the same arguments the plaintiff made the first time. At the same time, the plaintiff appealed a ruling in a separate case before the Bankruptcy Court, and in his brief identifying the issues in that action, the plaintiff misrepresented the procedural history of that case and did not disclose that a final judgment had been entered against him.
The defendants filed a motion for sanctions and south an injunction prohibiting future litigation.
The plaintiff’s decision to file for a second motion for reconsideration was not because he had a “colorable legal position, but only for purposes of obstruction and delay,” ruled Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff is a “well-known serial litigant,” Judge McHugh wrote, which is “relevant both as to his level of sophistication, and as to whether he was acting in good faith.”
Motions for reconsideration have a legal standard that must be met and “as a sophisticated pro se litigant, Mr. Taggart must be charged with knowledge of this standard, and he ignored it,” Judge McHugh ruled. “And, from past experience, he certainly knew that in prior cases such motions were never successful except to prolong proceedings.”
Judge McHugh ordered the plaintiff to pay $8,705 in attorney’s fees to the defendant’s attorneys, but denied the injunction prohibiting future litigation against the defendant.
