0NITEB STATES BISTRICT C00RT

BISTRICT 0F NARYLANB
uREENBELT BIvISI0N

BRETT KINBERLIN,
Plaintiff,

v. No PWu 1S-SuS9

NATI0NAL BL0uuERS CL0B, et al,
Befenuants.


!"#$"% '%( !)!"*'%(+! $% ,+--"*# ". *+/) 00 ,'%1#$"%, '2'$%,#
-/'%$#$.. #3$#1456, '##"*%)5 !$14')/ ,!$#4

Befenuant Biett Kimbeilin submits this motion anu memoianuum of law in
suppoit of Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff Twitchy's counsel, Nichael Smith. Rule
11(c), Feu. R. Civ. P.11.
!7897: ;7< *=>? 00 ,@:A897:B
Ni. Smith fileu a motionmemoianuum seeking uismissal of the Complaint in this
case baseu on an allegation maue in bau faith, foi an impiopei puipose, anu not
objectively ieasonable because it lacks any ielevant basis in law oi fact.
Accoiuingly, Befenuant is entitleu to Rule 11 sanctions against Ni. Smith foi the
filing,
The filing maue by Ni. Smith asks the Couit to uismiss the Complaint because he
asseits that Plaintiff maue a check maik on a ceitifieu gieen caiu anu submitteu it in
a case penuing in Nontgomeiy County Ciicuit Couit. Ni. Smith asseits falsely that
Plaintiff uiu so in oiuei to misleau the couit in that case. Ni. Smith attacheu a
tiansciipt fiom a state couit heaiing on Apiil 9, 2u14, which has no beaiing on this
case anu uoes not suppoit his aigument in the least. Be asks the Couit to cheiiy
pick a few statements of Plaintiff anu the juuge at the heaiing anu to then uismiss
the instant case. This is a malicious anu meiitless allegation that has been maue to
this Couit in oiuei to poitiay Plaintiff in a false light to piejuuice this Couit against
Plaintiff anu make him appeai to flaunt the iules of the couit.
Ni. Smith ieceiveu this false naiiative fiom uniepiesenteu Befenuants Walkei
anu Boge who bieathlessly iaceu uown to the Nontgomeiy County Couit Repoitei
the uay of the heaiing to get a iecoiuing of the heaiing so they coulu publish theii
false naiiative on theii blogs. They bought a tiansciipt of the heaiing anu pioviueu
it to Ni. Smith who then fileu his sanctionable pleauing. This Couit has iepeateuly
aumonisheu Befenuants Walkei anu Boge foi theii conuuct in this case, anu now
Ni. Smith is ielying on anu coopeiating with them to haiass Plaintiff in this case.
This impiopei puipose foi filing the pleauing constitutes stiong justification foi
imposing Rule 11 sanctions.
/?C@> ,8@:D@<D

Rule 11 iequiies that "allegations anu othei factual contentions have eviuentiaiy
suppoit oi, if specifically so iuentifieu, aie likely to have eviuentiaiy suppoit aftei a
ieasonable oppoitunity foi fuithei investigation oi uiscoveiy." Rule 11(b)(S).
Similaily, it iequiies that "the claims . . . anu othei legal contentions theiein aie
waiianteu by existing law oi by a non-fiivolous aigument foi the extension,
mouification, oi ieveisal of existing law oi the establishment of new law." Rule
11(b)(2). Finally, it iequiies that a papei "not be|j piesenteu foi any impiopei
puipose, such as to haiass." Rule 11(b)(1). Rule 11 makes eveiy signatuie on a
pleauing, motion oi othei papei a ceitification of meiits of the uocuments signeu
anu authoiizes sanctions foi violation of the ceitification. Feu. R. Civ. P. 11. Any
signing paity has "an affiimative uuty to conuuct a ieasonable inquiiy into the facts
anu the law befoie filing." Business uuiues, Inc. v. Chiomatic Communications
Enteipiises, Inc., 498 0.S. SSS, SS1 (1991).
"`Rule 11 explicitly anu unambiguously imposes an affiimative uuty on each
attoiney to conuuct a ieasonable inquiiy into the viability of a pleauing befoie it is
signeu.'" uutieiiez v. Fox, 141 F.Su 42S, 427 (2u Cii. 1998), quoting Eastway
Constiuction Coip. v. City of New Yoik, 762 F.2u 24S, 2SS (2u Cii. 198S).
"Reasonable inquiiy" iequiies attoineys to seek cieuible infoimation iathei than
pioceeu on meie suspicions oi supposition. Califoinia Aichitectuial Builuing
Piouucts v. Fianciscan Ceiamics, 818 F.2u 1466, 1472 (9th Cii. 1987); see also
Cabell v. Petty, 81u F.2u 46S, 466 (4th Cii. 1987)(lawsuit cannot be useu as a
"speculative effoit to finu someone financially liable foi plaintiff's injuiies"). Thus,
"a Complaint containing allegations unsuppoiteu by any infoimation obtaineu piioi
to filing, oi allegations baseu on infoimation which minimal factual inquiiy woulu
uispiove, will subject the authoi to sanctions." In ie Kunstlei, 914 F.2u SuS, S16
(4th Cii. 199u). It is no longei acceptable to file suit fiist anu finu out latei whethei
oi not the plaintiff has a case against the uefenuant. See Bon. William W. Schwaizei,
Sanctions 0nuei the New Feueial Rule 11 -- A Closei Look, 1u4 F.R.B. 181 (198S);
Bale v. Bainey, 786 F.2u 688, 692 (Sth Cii. 1986). "It is not peimissible to file suit
anu use uiscoveiy as the sole means of finuing out whethei you have a case.
Biscoveiy fills in the uetails, but you must have the outline of a claim at the
beginning." Szabo Foou Seivice, Inc. v. Canteen Coip., 82S F.2u 1u7S, 1u8S (7th Cii.
1987).
Thus, Rule 11 authoiizes "the imposition of sanctions upon a finuing that a factual
allegation has no eviuentiaiy suppoit, unless theie was a specific uisclaimei that
auuitional investigation was necessaiy." 0'Biien v. Alexanuei, 1u1 F.Su 1479, 1489
(2u Cii. 1996). Accoiuingly, "|fjactual allegations on infoimation anu belief aie
piopei only if they aie specifically iuentifieu as `likely to have eviuentiaiy suppoit
aftei a ieasonable oppoitunity foi fuithei investigation anu uiscoveiy.'" Bon.
William W. Schwaizei, et al., Califoinia Piactice uuiue: Feueial Civil Pioceuuie
Befoie Tiial, 17:SS at 17-24.2 (Ruttei uioup 1999)(emphasis in oiiginal), quoting
Feu. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(S); accoiu 2 Nooie's Feueial Piactice 11.11|9j|aj at 11-S6 (Su
eu. 2uu1). "A litigant is not ielieveu fiom its obligation to conuuct an appiopiiate
investigation into the facts that is `ieasonable unuei the ciicumstances.'"
Schwaizei, Feueial Civil Pioceuuie Befoie Tiial, 17:SS.S at 17-2S, quoting Feu. R.
Civ. P. 11(b).
Rule 11 is also violateu wheie the claim is not waiianteu by existing law oi a
"non-fiivolous" aigument foi change of that law. Legal aiguments aie helu to an
"objective stanuaiu of ieasonableness," anu Rule 11 is violateu wheie, foi example,
it is "cleai . . . that theie is no chance of success anu no ieasonable aigument to
extenu, mouify, oi ieveise the law as it stanus." Caisse Nationale v. valcoip., Inc., 28
F.Su 2S9, 264 (2u Cii. 1994). Rule 11 "establishes an objective stanuaiu, intenueu
to eliminate any `empty-heau puie-heait' justification" foi fiivolous aiguments,
Naigo v. Weiss, 21S F.Su SS, 64 (2u Cii. 2uuu)(fiivolous legal aigument neeu not be
intenueu as such). "Subjective goou faith . . . pioviues |noj safe haiboi." Eastway
Constiuction Coip. v. City of New Yoik, 762 F.2u 24S, 2SS (2u Cii. 198S), citing, e.g.,
William W. Schwaizei, Sanctions 0nuei the New Feueial Rule 11 -- A Closei Look,
1u4 F.R.B. 181 (198S).
Thus, if a contiolling case is fatal to a claim, anu a ieasonably competent attoiney
woulu have founu it, the claim is not well-giounueu in law. Balfoui uuthiie, Inc. v.
Buntei Naiine Tiansp., Inc., 118 F.R.B. 66, 74 (N.B. Tenn. 1987); see Eastway
Constiuction Coip. v. City of New Yoik, 762 F.2u 24S, 2S2-SS (2u Cii. 198S); In ie
Kunstlei, 914 F.2u SuS (4th Cii. 199u); Rougeis v. Lincoln Towing Seivices, Inc., 771
F.2u 194, 2uS (7th Cii. 198S).
Not only the signing attoiney but his oi hei law fiim is iesponsible. See Rule
11(c)(1)(A)("Absent exceptional ciicumstances, a law fiim shall be helu jointly
iesponsible foi violations committeu by its paitneis, associates, anu employees"); 2
Nooie's Feueial Piactice 11.2S|6j|bj at 11-Su-S1 7 (Su eu. 2uu1). Even if a
pleauing states a meiitoiious claim against one uefenuant, that uoes not justify
auuing otheis against whom the claim is fiivolous. Townsenu v. Bolman Consulting
Coip., 914 F.2u 11S6, 1141 (9th Cii. 199u); see also Cioss & Cioss Piopeities v.
Eveiett Allieu Co., 886 F.2u 497, SuS (2u Cii. 1989)(Rule 11 is violateu even wheie
only pait of a pleauing, iathei than the entiie pleauing, is fiivolous).





'<C=E?:8

-/'$%#$..6, 1"+%,)/ ,4"+/( F) ,'%1#$"%)( +%()* *+/) 00 F)1'+,) 4$,
-/)'($%2 $, .'1#+'//5 .*$G"/"+,H /)2'//5 2*"+%(/),,H '%( F*"+24#
."* '% $!-*"-)* -+*-",)

$I #J? .@A8=@> '>>?C@897:B '<? 2<7=:D>?BB

Ni. Smith is not an attoiney in the state case anu his Twitchy client is not a
uefenuant. Be was not piesent at the heaiing on Apiil 9, 2u14 anu has no iuea of the
facts anu context of the issue, yet he has askeu this Couit to uismiss the Complaint in
the instant case because of the false naiiative pioviueu to him by Befenuants
Walkei anu Boge.
Beie aie the facts in biief: Plaintiff is suing Befenuant Ali Akbai in that case foi
matteis uistinct fiom those allegeu in the instant case. Befenuant Akbai, as in this
case, avoiueu seivice foi months on enu. Theiefoie, Plaintiff fileu a Notion foi
Alteinate Seivice anu when uoing so noticeu that the postal official hau not checkeu
the iestiicteu ueliveiy box on the gieen caiu as Plaintiff hau iequesteu. Theiefoie,
Plaintiff checkeu it. At a heaiing on }anuaiy 1S, 2u14, Befenuant Akbai's attoiney
objecteu to the motion anu complaineu to the juuge that she shoulu uismiss the case
because of the check maik. }uuge Buiiell uenieu the motion to uismiss anu simply
askeu Plaintiff to iesenu the complaint anu summons again with the iestiicteu box
checkeu piopeily.
Docket Date: 01/13/2014 Docket Number: 62
Docket Description: HEARING
Docket Type: Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Denied
Ruling Judge: BURRELL, SHARON V
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 38 Opposition: 58
Docket Text:
HEARING (BURRELL, J.) ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FIND
DEFENDANT ALI AKBAR SERVED UNDER RULE 2-121 (B) (#38) -
DENIED. ORDER SIGNED. PLAINTIFF APPEARED WITHOUT
COUNSEL. DEFENDANT, AARON WALKER'S COUNSEL, MR.
OSTRONIC. DEFENDANT, ANONYMOUS BLOGGER'S COUNSEL, MR.
OSTRONIC. INTERESTED PARTY, GOOGLE INC. COUNSEL, MR.
REINGOLD.
Audio Media: 02-011314 Start: 11:20:25 Stop: 11:55:40

Docket Date: 01/13/2014 Docket Number: 63
Docket Description: MOTION, DISMISS (PARTIAL - CASE NOT CLOSED)
Docket Type: Motion Filed By: Defendant Status: Denied
Docket Text:
DEFENDANT, ALI AKBAR'S ORAL MOTION TO DISMISS (BURRELL,
J.) - DENIED.

Plaintiff ieceiveu a new summons anu complaint fiom the Cleik anu again sent
them to Befenuant Akbai with the piopeily checkeu box. 0nueteiieu, Befenuant
Akbai's attoiney fileu a motion foi sanctions again asking that the complaint be
uismisseu on the basis of the piioi check maik. When the Complaint was ietuineu
as unueliveiable, Plaintiff fileu a seconu Notion foi Alteinate Seivice.
Befenuant Akbai's counsel objecteu anu again askeu that the case be uismisseu but
}uuge Buiiell again uenieu the motion anu gianteu Plaintiff's Notion foi Alteinate
Seivice.
Docket Date: 03/14/2014 Docket Number: 106
Docket Description: ORDER, ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Docket Type: Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Granted
Ruling Judge: BURRELL, SHARON V
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 102 Opposition: 111
Docket Text:
ORDER OF COURT (BURRELL, J.) COURT FINDS THAT PLAINTIFF
HAS SERVED DEFENDANT AKBAR AS OF JANUARY 25, 2014 WHEN
HE SENT THE COMPLAINT BY CERTIFIFIED MAIL TO DEFENDANT
AKBAR'S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. THEREFORE THAT AN ANSWER
IS DUE FROM DEFENDANT AKBAR ON OR BEFORE MARCH 26,
2014, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)

Still unueteiieu, Plaintiff's counsel askeu foi ieconsiueiation, which was also
uenieu anu }uuge Buiiell oiueieu Befenuant Akbai to answei the Complaint.
: 03/17/2014 Docket Number: 112
Docket Description: MOTION, VACATE ORDER
Docket Type: Motion Filed By: Defendant Status: Denied
Reference Docket(s): Opposition: 115 Ruling: 139
Docket Text:
DEFENDANT, ALI AKBAR'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND RESCIND
THE ORDER GRANTING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE AND REQUEST FOR
HEARING, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 03/27/2014 Docket Number: 119
Docket Description: ORDER, PLACE CASE ON STAY DOCKET
Docket Type: Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Granted
Ruling Judge: BURRELL, SHARON V
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 118
Docket Text:
AMENDED ORDER OF COURT (BURRELL, J.) THAT IN
CONSIDERATION DEFENDANT AKBAR'S MOTION THIS COURT'S
ORDER GRANTING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE, ORIGINALLY ENTERED
ON MARCH 14, 2014; AND THAT THE ORDER IS AMENDED TO
REQUIRE DEFENDANT AKBAR TO FILE AN ANSWER ON OR BEFORE
APRIL 4, 2014, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)

Then on Apiil 9, 2u14, }uuge Ryon helu a heaiing on Befenuant Akbai's Notion to
Sanctions anu again counsel askeu foi uismissal of the Complaint. Buiing the
heaiing, }uuge Ryon attempteu to finu }uuge Buiiell's piioi oial iuling at the }anuaiy
1S, 2u14 heaiing but was unable to uo so. Following the heaiing, the juuge uenieu
the motion to uismiss anu foi sanctions.
Docket Date: 04/09/2014 Docket Number: 131
Docket Description: HEARING, DISCOVERY
Docket Type: Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Denied
Ruling Judge: RYON, JOAN ELIZABETH
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 81 Opposition: 85
Docket Text:
HEARING (RYON, J.) ON DEFENDANT, ALI AKBAR'S MOTION TO
SANCTION PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S CASE AGAINST MR.
AKBAR BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (DE #81) - DENIED.
Audio Media: 20-040914 Start: 12:07:53 Stop: 12:51:45

Bespite all of this, Ni. Smith has askeu this Couit to uo something that two state
juuges on multiple occasions iefuseu to uo in the state case - i.e., uismiss this case.
Be has askeu this Couit to sanction Plaintiff with attoiney fees even though the state
couit uenieu all iequests to sanction Plaintiff. Be has falsely accuseu Plaintiff of
nefaiious conuuct when he has no fiist hanu knowleuge of the issues oi facts oi
heaiings, anu he has uone so in oiuei to poison this case anu make Plaintiff appeai
ouious.
Ni. Smith's conuuct is iepiehensible, unethical anu unbecoming of a membei of
the bai. Be has bought into the false naiiatives of Befenuants Walkei anu Boge who
uo not let a uay go by without falsely accusing Plaintiff of some ciime oi malfeasance
online oi in couit filings. Ni. Smith has jettisoneu his iole as an auvocate anu has
become a haiassei of Plaintiff using false naiiatives just as the Befenuants have
uone foi the past seveial yeais. Ni. Smith has useu his "quote" Nemoianuum to
violate the Couit's Nanagement 0iuei, which piohibits motions without peimission
anu au hominem attacks. Be has useu his Nemoianuum to sneak in false anu
piejuuicial infoimation unuei the guise of infoiming the Couit of ielevant
infoimation. Relevant to what. All Notions to Bismiss anu foi Sanctions weie
uenieu in the state couit so the only things that aie ielevant aie that (1) Befenuant
Ali Akbai has been founu to be avoiuing seivice, anu (2) Befenuant Akbai's Notion
to Bismiss was uenieu. In what legal woilu uoes the uenial of a motion pioviue the
basis foi the gianting of an unielateu motion in an unielateu case involving an
unielateu uefenuant... That is not pieceuent, it's Alice in Wonueilanu. This is not
ielevant, it's anti-ielevant.
The state couit on }anuaiy 1S, 2u14 uenieu all of the state Befenuants' Notions to
Bismiss foi failuie to state a claim. So if Plaintiff auueu a twist to Ni. Smith's
illogical aigument, he coulu ask this Couit to ueny all of the Befenuants' Notions to
Bismiss fileu in the instant case simply because the state juuge on }anuaiy 1S, 2u14,
uenieu all theii similai motions in the state case. At least Plaintiff woulu have some
iational basis foi that aigument but of couise it woulu be impiopei foi this Couit to
consiuei such infoimation in ueciuing the Notions to Bismiss in the instant case.
The false, malicious anu conclusoiy natuie of Ni. Smith's allegations against
Plaintiff uemonstiates that he faileu to comply with his uuty to investigate the
allegations he maue against Plaintiff. Counsel hau a uuty to conuuct a ieasonable
factual inquiiy befoie accusing Plaintiff of coiiuption anu abuse of piocess. Cleaily,
he acteu in bau faith anu foi an impiopei puipose.
17:A>=B97:

When expeiienceu lawyeis such as Ni. Smith asseit meiitless claims, "a stiong
infeience aiises that theii biinging of an action . . . was foi an impiopei puipose."
Buettig & Schiomm, Inc. v. Lanscape Contiactois, 79u F.2u 1421, 1427 (9th Cii.
1986). Ni. Smith must be awaie of the pleauing iequiiements in civil cases since he
piomotes himself as an expeit in appellate law anu civil pioceuuie, yet the pleauing
he fileu in this case not only fails to satisfy the most basic iules foi such claims, but
also contains outiight false anu malicious allegations maue foi an impiopei
puipose.
Wheiefoie, foi all the above ieasons, Plaintiff uiges this Couit to impose Rule 11
sanctions against Ni. Smith by oiueiing him to pay a substantial sum to the Couit
that will uetei him anu otheis fiom filing fiivolous anu malicious pleauings such as
he uiu in this case.

Respectfully submitteu,
Biett Kimbeilin
81uu Beech Tiee Ru
Bethesua, NB 2u817
(Su1) S2u S921
justicejtmpcomcast.net


Ceitificate 0f Seivice
I ceitify that I emaileu a copy of this motion to Nichael Smith this 7
th
uay of Nay
2u14, puisuant to Rule 11(c)(2) piioi to filing with the Couit.
Biett Kimbeilin