CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 230 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA KRISTIN NACA,
Case No. 16‐CV‐3263 (PJS/BRT) Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
MACALESTER COLLEGE, Defendant.
Peter J. Nickitas for plaintiff. Sean R. Somermeyer, Kathlyn E. Noecker, and Terran C. Chambers, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, for defendant. On December 28, 2017, the Court ordered plaintiff’s attorney Peter Nickitas to show cause why he should not be required to pay $1,000 to defendant Macalester College to compensate it for having to incur attorney’s fees to brief the effect of Nickitas’s multiple failures to comply with the Local Rules of this District. ECF No. 159. This matter is before the Court on Nickitas’s response to the order to show cause. Nickitas offers no excuse or justification for his violations of the Local Rules, which include filing an objection grossly in excess of the prescribed word count and filing a late objection without acknowledgment or excuse. There is no doubt that Nickitas’s violations were knowing and willful; Nickitas is an experienced federal practitioner and the rules that he violated are simple and clear. See Clark v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 460
CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 230 Filed 02/09/18 Page 2 of 3
F.3d 1004, 1011 (8th Cir. 2006) (28 U.S.C. § 1927 “permits sanctions when an attorney’s conduct, viewed objectively, manifests either intentional or reckless disregard of the attorney’s duties to the court” (citation and quotations omitted)). Nickitas also has a long history of failing to follow the rules and directions of this Court, both in this and in other cases. See ECF No. 66‐1 (previous objection that was also more than double the prescribed word count); ECF No. 182 (detailing other failures to follow basic filing procedures and a failure to respond to a court order); see also Ligons v. Minn. Dep’t of Corr., No. 15‐CV‐2210 (PJS/BRT), ECF No. 30 (denying motion without prejudice because Nickitas failed to contact the Court before filing a motion and also failed to meet and confer); Scheffler v. McDonough, No. 15‐CV‐3707 (PJS/KMM), ECF No. 55 n.1 (Nickitas failed to attach a redlined version of a proposed amended complaint); id. ECF No. 62‐1 (overlong objection filed a day late); Flores v. Stio Roofing & Constr., L.L.C., No. 15‐CV‐3878 (PJS/TNL), ECF No. 10 (Report and Recommendation detailing history of Nickitas’s failures to comply with court directives). Although both this Court and opposing counsel have alerted Nickitas to his rule violations, he has remained undeterred. See ECF No. 77 at 1 (Macalester memorandum noting that Nickitas’s objection was more than double the prescribed word count); ECF No. 110 at 5 (“In this case and in several other cases before the Court, Naca’s counsel has regularly violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this
-2-
CASE 0:16-cv-03263-PJS-BRT Document 230 Filed 02/09/18 Page 3 of 3
District. The Court will no longer tolerate such violations.”). The Court therefore finds that Nickitas has unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied these proceedings and that Macalester should not have to bear the cost of his violations. Accordingly, the Court orders Nickitas to pay $1,000 in attorney’s fees to Macalester no later than March 9, 2018.1 ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, attorney Peter Nickitas must pay $1,000 in attorney’s fees to defendant Macalester College no later than March 9, 2018.
2.
No later than March 9, 2018, attorney Nickitas must file an affidavit stating that he has complied with ¶ 1 of this order.
Dated: February 9, 2018
s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
1
Nickitas has not objected to this amount, which the Court considers to be a reasonable estimate of the fees that Macalester has incurred as a direct result of Nickitas’s violations. -3-
