1

2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ROYE.CHANSON

,
NewJersey
":l 0"" T - 2 f '.l g: 2'
...) )....,1 f-).iJ
\
NUNC PRO TUNC l(.)Al"
SEP 272013
INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
,aminor,throughher
mother
Plaintiff,
v.
ERICS.CHANSON,anindividual;
ROYE.CHANSON,anindividual;
AMYL.CHANSON,anindividual;
KEVINC.BOLLAERT,anindividual;
BLUEMISTMEDIA,LLC.alimited-
liabilitycompanyofunknownorigin,d/b/a
"YOUGOTPOSTED"
,
Defendants.
S7
822
008
) CaseNo.:
) 13-cv-1238CABBLM
)
DEFENDANTROY
)
E.CHANSON'SAND
)
DEFENDANTAMYL.
) CHANSON'SMOTION
FORSANCTIONS
)
PURSUANTTORULE11
)
ANDMEMORANDUM
) OFPOINTSAND
AUTHORITIES
)
)
) DECLARATIONSOF
ROYE.CHANSONAND
)
AMYL.CHANSONFILED
)
CONCURRENTLY
)
)
)
)
)
1).0. MOTIONFORSANCllONS
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
kc:dc
. AM]DRAFT
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTIONFORSANCTIONSPURSUANTTORULE11
PursuanttoRule11 oftheFederalRulesof CivilProcedure,DefendantsRoy
E.ChansonandAmy L.Chanson(the"ChansonDefendants"),appearingpro se,
respectfullymovethisCourtforentryof anorderof sanctionsagainst Mr.MarcJ.
Randazza andChristopherA.Harvey("Harvey"),attorneysforthe
Plaintiff,aminor,andtheirrespectivelaw!inns.RandazzaandHarvey,membersof
theCaliforniaBar,signedthePlaintiff'sComplaintwithoutproperlyinvestigating
thefactsandtherebyascertainingthattheChansonDefendantsarenotinvolved
withthewebsiteorcompanyattheheartofthePlaintiff'sclaims.ThisMotion
issupportedbytheaccompanyingmemorandumofpointsand authorities,the
declarationsoftheChansonDefendants,andthepleadingsonfileinthis action.
DATEDthisQLdayof 2013.
CHANSON
Defendtmt

L.CHANSON
Defendllnt
MOTIONFORSANCllONS
2
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
3
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTIONFORSANCTIONSPURSUANTTORULE11
PursuanttoRule 11 of theFederalRulesof CivilProcedure,DefendantsRoy
E.ChansonandAmyL.Chanson(the"ChansonDefendants"),appearingpro se,
respectfullymovethisCourtforentryofanorderofsanctionsagainst Mr.MarcJ.
Randazza("Randazza")andChristopherA.Harvey("Harvey"),attorneysforthe
Plaintiff,aminor,andtheirrespectivelawfirms.RandazzaandHarvey,membersof
theCaliforniaBar,signedthePlaintiffsComplaintwithoutproperlyinvestigating
thefactsandtherebyascertainingthattheChansonDefendantsarenotinvolved
withthewebsiteorcompanyattheheartof thePlaintiff'sc1aims. ThisMotion
issupportedbytheaccompanyingmemorandumof pointsandauthorities,the
dec1arationsof theChansonDefendants,andthepleadingsonfileinthisaction.
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
4
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 4 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTBORITES
BACKGROUND
This action arises from the alleged distribution of allegedly pornographic
photographs of the Plaintiff taken when she was under the age of eighteen. The
Plaintiff contends that the Chanson Defendants, along with the other defendants,
distributed allegedly lewd and lascivious images of the Plaintiff through a website.
However, the Plaintiff does not and cannot ascertain that the Chanson Defendants
are in any way associated with the website on which the photographs allegedly
appeared. All the Plaintiff's allegations against the Chanson Defendants are "upon
information and belief." See Complaint 5 - 20. As Randazza and Harvey are
aware, there is no legal or factual basis for joining the Chanson Defendants in this
action, and accordingly, the Chanson Defendants are entitled to Rule 11 sanctions
against Randazza and Harvey for filing the Complaint in this action. Gutierrez v.
Fox, 141 F .3d 425, 427 (2d Cir. 1998) ("If an attorney alleges jurisdiction when
reasonable inquiry would show that it did not exist, he may be held liable for
sanctions substantial in amount. See International Shipping Co., S.A. v. Hydra
Offshore, Inc., 875 F.2d 388, 390 (2d Cir.1989); Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d
1265, 1275 (2d Cir.l986); Weisman v. Rivlin, 598 F.Supp.724, 726 (D.D.C.1984)").
STANDARD
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
5
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 5 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rule 11 requiresthat"allegationsandotherfactual contentionshave
evidentiarysupportor, ifspecificallysoidentified,arelikelytohaveevidentiary
supportafterareasonableopportunityforfurtherinvestigationordiscovery."Rule
II(b)(3).Similarly,itrequiresthat"theclaims...andotherlegalcontentions
thereinarewarrantedbyexistinglaworbyanonfrivolous argumentforthe
extension,modification,orreversalofexistinglawortheestablishmentof new
law."Rule 11(b)(2).Finally,itrequiresthatapaper"notbe[]presentedforany
improperpurpose,suchastoharass." Rule II(b)(1).
Rule 11 makeseverysignatureonapleading,motionorotherpapera
certificationofmeritsofthedocumentssignedandauthorizessanctionsforviolation
of thecertification.Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.Anysigningpartyhas"anaffirmativedutyto
conductareasonableinquiryintothefactsandthelawbeforefiling."Business
Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498U.S.533,551
(1991).Anattorney'ssignatureonacomplaintistantamounttoawarrantythatthe
complaintiswellgroundedinfactandexistinglaw(orproposesagoodfaith
extensionoftheexistinglaw)andthatitisnotfiledforanimproperpurpose.
Christian v. Mattei, Inc., 286F.3d1118, 1127(9thCir,2002); Truesdell v. Southern
California Permanente Medical Group, 293 F.3d1146, 1153 (9thCir. 2002).'''Rule
11explicitlyandunambiguouslyimposesanaffirmativedutyoneachattorneyto
conductareasonableinquiryintotheviabilityofapleadingbeforeitissigned.'"
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
6
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 6 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gutierrez v. Fox, 141 F.3d425,427(2dCir. 1998),quoting Eastway Construction
Corp. v. City ojNew York, 762F.2d243,253 (2dCir. 1985)."Reasonableinquiry"
requiresattorneystoseekcredibleinfonnationratherthanproceedonmere
suspicionsorsupposition.California Architectural Building Products v. Franciscan
Ceramics, 818F.2dI466, 1472(9thCir. 1987);see also Cabell v. Petty, 810
F.2d463,466(4thCir. 1987)(lawsuitcannotbeusedas a"speculativeefforttofmd
someone[]liableforplaintiffsinjuries").Thus,"acomplaintcontainingallegations
unsupportedbyanyinfonnationobtainedpriortofiling, orallegationsbasedon
infonnationwhichminimalfactualinquirywoulddisprove,willsubjecttheauthorto
sanctions."In re Kunstler, 914F.2d505,516(4thCir. 1990).
It isnotacceptabletofile suitfirstandfindoutlaterwhetherornotthe
plaintiffhasacaseagainstthedefendant. See Hale v. Harney, 786F.2d688,692
(5thCir. 1986)."It isnotpennissibletofile suitandusediscoveryasthesolemeans
of findingoutwhetheryouhaveacase....Rule 11 requiresindependentinquiry."
Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823F.2dl073,1083(7thCir. 1987);
see also, Albright v. Upjohn, 788F.2d1217, 1221 (6thCir.l986)(Rule 11 "stresses
theneedforsomeprefilinginquiryintoboththefactsandthelawtosatisfythe
affinnativedutyimposedbytherule.").
Thus,Rule 11 authorizes"theimpositionofsanctionsuponafmdingthata
factualallegationhasnoevidentiarysupport,unlesstherewasaspecificdisclaimer
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
1
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 7 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
thatadditionalinvestigationwasnecessary."O'Brien v. Alexander, 101 F.3dI479,
1489(2dCir. 1996).Accordingly,"[f]actualallegationsoninformationandbeliefare
properonlyiftheyarespecifically identified as'likelytohaveevidentiarysupport
afterareasonableopportunityforfurtherinvestigationanddiscovery.'" Hon.
WilliamW.Schwarzer,etaI.,CaliforniaPracticeGuide:FederalCivilProcedure
BeforeTrial,-U 17:55at17-24.2(RutterGroup1999)(emphasisinoriginal),quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3);accord 2Moore'sFederalPractice11.11[9][a] at11-36(3d
ed.2001)."Alitigantisnotrelievedfromitsobligationtoconductanappropriate
investigationintothefactsthatis 'reasonableunderthecircumstances.'"Schwarzer,
FederalCivilProcedureBeforeTrial,-U 17:55.3at17-25,quoting Fed.R. Civ.P.
11(b).
Rule 11 isalsoviolatedwheretheclaimisnotwarrantedbyexistinglawor
anonfrivolous"argumentforchangeof thatlaw.Legalargumentsareheldtoan
"objectivestandardof reasonableness,"andRule11 isviolatedwhere,forexample,
itis"clear...thatthereisnochanceof successandnoreasonableargumentto
extend,modifY, orreversethelawasitstands."Caisse Nationale v. Valcorp., Inc., 28
F.3d259,264(2dCir. 1994).Rule 11 "establishesanobjectivestandard,intendedto
eliminateany'empty-headpure-heart'justification"forfrivolousarguments,Margo
v. Weiss, 213F.3d55,64(2dCir.2000)."Subjectivegoodfaith...provides[no]
safeharbor."Eastway Construction Corp. v. City o/New York, 762F.2d243,253
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
8
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 8 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(2dCir. 1985), citing, e.g., William W. Schwarzer, Sanctions Under the New Federal
Rule 11 -- A Closer Look, 104 F .R.D. 181 (1985); see also, Mann v. G & G Mfg.,
Inc., 900 F.2d 953, 958 (6th Cir.l990).
Not only the signing attorney but his or her law fInn is responsible. See
Rule 11(c)(I) ("Absent exceptional circumstances, a law fIrm must be held jointly
responsible fora violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee");
2 Moore's Federal Practice I 1.23 [6][b] at 11-50-517(3d ed. 2001). Even if a
pleading states a meritorious claim against one defendant, that does not justify
adding others against whom the claim is frivolous. Townsend v. Holman Consulting
Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Cross & Cross Properties v.
Everett Allied Co., 886 F.2d 497, 505(2d Cir. 1989)(Rule 11 is violated even where
only part of a pleading, rather than the entire pleading, is frivolous).
Accordingly for the reasons outlined above, a grant of sanctions against
Randazza and Harvey is wholly appropriate. In fact, sanctions are mandatory in
the event the court determines Rule 11 has been violated, although the court has
"wide discretion" in delineating the extent of those sanctions. Albright, supra at
1222 ("Rule 11 expressly mandates the imposition of sanctions once a violation is
found").
Additionally, although Rule 11 sanctions generally take the form of an order
to pay a monetary penalty into court, Rule 11( c )(2), where a suit is brought for an
MOTION FOR SANClIONS
9
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 9 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
improperpurpose,suchastoharass,Rule 11 explicitlyallowsforexpensesincurred
asadirectresultoftheviolationtobepaiddirectlytotheotherparty.See Union
Planters Bank v. L &JDevelopment Co., 115F.3d378(6thCir. 1997)e ~ direct
payouttotheinjuredpartyisparticularlyappropriateforRule 11(b)(1)violations
involving[improper]motivations"),citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 11,AdvisoryCommittee
Notes(1993 Amendment).
ARGtTMENT
Randazza and Harvey Siened and Filed a Frivolous Complaint
TheChansonDefendantsareout-of-statedefendantsandthePlaintiffhas
failedtoshowinherComplaintthattheChansonDefendantsareamenabletosuitin
thisdistrict.TheSixthCircuithasexplainedthattherearetwokindsofpersonal
jurisdictionthatcanbeexercised,generalandspecifi,c.Brunner v. Hampson, 441
F.3d457,463(6thCir.2006).Generaljurisdictionexistswhenthedefendant's
contactswiththeforumstateare"substantial"and"continuousandsystematic,"
suchthatthestatemayexercisepersonaljurisdictionevenif theactiondoesnot
relatetothedefendant'scontactswiththestate. Youn v. Track, Inc., 324F.3d409,
418(6thCir .2003).Specificjurisdictionexistswhenthecontactsgivingriseto
jurisdictionrelatetotheclaimthatisbeforethecourt.Id.
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
to
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 10 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Plaintiff has not shown or even alleged that the Chanson Defendants have
extensive in-state contacts with California or that they conduct any activities within
the state -let alone substantial and continuous activities. Estate ofThomson ex rei.
Estate ofRakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357, 360 (6th Cir.
2008) ("The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence ofjurisdiction.
Plaintiff has not met and cannot meet its burden. Neither Randazza or Harvey
conducted the simple inquiries that would have established that the Chanson
Defendants are not associated in any way with the website at issue in this action.
Conclusory allegations unsupported by facts or law warrant sanctions. Haverstick
Enter. v. Financial Fed. Credit, Inc., 803 F.Supp. 1251, 1259-61 (E.D.Mich.1992)
(admonishing plaintiffs and their counsel to research their claims more carefully to
avoid monetary sanctions); Pierzynowski v. Detroit Police Dep't, 947 F.Supp.1147,
1151 (E.D.Mich.1996); Eisman v. Standard Fed. Bank (Michigan), 238 F. Supp. 2d
903, 909 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
The Chanson Defendants are not involved with the website or the company at
the heart of the Plaintiff's claims. See Declaration of Roy E. Chanson " 6-17 and
Declaration of Amy L. Chanson " 6-17. The Plaintiff's self-serving statements that
the Chanson Defendants "actively participate, and materially assist Eric S. Chanson,
in operating websites on the World Wide Web" are insufficient to establish any
connection. Complaint' 3-4. The Plaintiff jumps from an allegation that ''upon
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
11
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 11 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
infonnationandbelief,RoyE.Chansonsupervised,assisted,andparticipatedin
fonnattinganddistributionof theimagesappearingontheYouGotPostedwebsite,
whichincludethechildpornographyatissueinthislitigation,"toaconfinnation
thattherefore,RoyE.Chansonisapartnerof defendantsKevinC. BollaertandEric
S. Chansonandanalter-egoof defendantBlueMistMediaLLC.Complaint 16-17.
ThePlaintiffmakesthesameleapwithregardtothestatusof AmyL.Chanson.
Complaint 19-20.See, e.g., Escude Cruz v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 619F.2d902,
905 (1stCir.1980)(Holdingthatconclusoryallegationsof analteregorelationship
arenotsufficienttoestablishjurisdiction);see a/so, Amba Mktg. Sys. Inc. v. Jobar
Int'/. Inc., 551F.2d 784, 787(9
th
Cir. 1977)(stating thatplaintiffcannot"simply
restonthebareallegationsofitscomplaint"). Accordingly,thePlaintiff's
ComplaintagainsttheChansonDefendantsshouldbedismissed.
RandazzaandHarveyareattorneysandshouldhavebeenawareof thelaw
thatgovernsjurisdictioninanactioninfederalcourt.Evenasidefromthefactthat
theChansonDefendantsdidnotharmthePlaintiffinanywayandwerenotinvolved
intheallegeddistributionof allegedlypornographicphotographsof her,Randazza
andHarveyhadnobasisforassertingthatthisCourthadjurisdictionoverthe
ChansonDefendants.Accordingly,thismotionforsanctionspursuanttoRule11
shouldbegrantedagainstRandazzaandHarvey.
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
\1
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 12 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
In lightof theforegoing,theChansonDefendantsrespectfullyrequestthatthis
CourtissueanorderforsanctionsagainstRandazzaandHarvey_
DATEDthis.)/sf dayo&(lJ.y2013.

NewJersey
Defendant

---- AMYt.CHANSON
rI.

,
NewJersey
Defendant
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
13
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 13 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
We,RoyE. ChansonandAmyL. Chanson,declareunderpenaltyof petjury
thatweservedacomplete,trueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoingMOTIONFOR
SANCTIONS,MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES,
DECLARATIONOFROYE.CHANSONANDDECLARATIONOFAMYL.
CHANSONuponallotherpartiesin thiscasebyovernightexpressmailtothe
following ;;21 , 2013.
MarcJ. Randazza
ChristopherA. Harvey
RandazzaLegalGroup
6525W. WarmSpringsRd. Ste. 100
LasVegas,Nevada89118
888-667-1113
Attorneysfor Plaintiff
EricS.Chanson

,
NewJersey
Defendant
BlueMistMediaLLC
d/b/a YouGotPosted
c/oDomainsbyProxyLLC
14747N.NorthsightBlvd.
Suite Ill,PMB309
Scottsdale,Arizona85260
Defendant
Dated:
.Chanson
MOTIONFORSANCTIONS
14
Case 3:13-cv-01238-CAB-BLM Document 14 Filed 10/02/13 Page 14 of 14