Rowe Entertainment v. The William Morris Agency

Civil Practice

New York Law Journal

   | 0 Comments    | SEE FULL TEXT OPINION

Judge Robert Patterson

The court denied Rowe Rule 60 relief from its Feb. 7, 2005, judgment, affirmed on appeal. Despite warnings, the court did not sanction Rowe for two improper discovery requests filed during the Rule 60 motion's pendency. Noting, among other things, Rowe's baseless accusations of racism, corruption and fraud against his former SNR Denton attorneys, the court ordered him to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Rowe also filed a sworn statement listing $19,500 in assets and $1.45 million in liabilities. SNR lawyers Gold and Heslin sought monetary sanctions payable to the court, and an order requiring Rose to obtain court approval before bringing action against current or former SNR Denton attorneys. The court denied the sanctions motion. Because he only filed one unsupported Rule 60 motion and two discovery requests for which he lacked standing, an order requiring that Rowe obtain the court's permission before filing further actions—usually reserved for instances when an offending party has filed multiple frivolous motions or actions—was not warranted. Rowe's financial statement showed him heavily in debt. Under the circumstances, a monetary sanction against Rowe would be inappropriate as unduly harsh.

Welcome to ALM. You have read 0 out of 0 free articles this month

Get 2 months of unlimited access FREE

What's being said

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202585802476

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.