The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDA WOLFSON, Magistrate Judge
Defendants Gold & Laine, P.C., Carl D. Poplar, P.A., Jeffrey E.
Gold, Esq., Evan E. Laine, Esq., Carl D. Poplar, Esq., Christy A.
Cicalese, Michele Laine, Brandon Laine and Jessica Laine have
filed a motion to impose monetary sanctions against Victoria
Perry, Plaintiff pro se ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Perry"), pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. Ms. Perry, who on September 29, 2004 was
declared a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of New
Jersey, has filed numerous lawsuits and complaints against Defendants in state and federal
court, as well as with certain administrative agencies, all
stemming from her interactions with her neighbor, Evan Laine, an
attorney who once represented Ms. Perry's mother in a legal
matter, and with Mr. Laine's family. All of her previous actions
have been dismissed and/or declared frivolous. By way of an
Opinion dated May 25, 2005, which is hereby incorporated by
reference, this Court dismissed all of her claims in the instant
matter, finding that "[n]one of them state[d] a claim," and that
they were "without any legal basis or justification," "baseless
and scandalous." Perry v. Gold & Laine, P.C.,
371 F.Supp.2d 622, 625-29 (D.N.J. 2005). The Court also enjoined her from
filing pro se complaints in this District without first
obtaining leave of court. Id. at 629-32.
Defendants are presently seeking all of their fees and costs
associated with this case, and they are also asking the court to
impose an "extraordinary" and "substantial" sanction against Ms.
Perry to be deposited into the State of New Jersey's treasury,
the Superior Court's fund/treasury, the United States District
Court, District of New Jersey's fund/treasury, or the New Jersey
IOLTA fund. Ms. Perry has sent numerous faxes to the Court
arguing, inter alia, against the imposition of any sanctions
and furthermore, that I should recuse myself. For the reasons
stated below, Ms. Perry's request for my recusal is denied and
the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted.
In 1996 or 1997, Evan Laine, Esq. represented Ms. Perry's
mother, Ollie, in a personal injury suit. In 1998, Ms. Perry
moved into the house across the street from Evan Laine and his family, on Saxby Terrace in Cherry Hill. In December 1998, Evan
Laine and his law firm, Gold & Laine, P.C., agreed to represent
Ms. Perry's mother once again. In 1999, Ms. Perry sent her
neighbors, the Laines, various unsolicited items, including a
disturbing letter discussing Plaintiff's religious beliefs,
volunteering that Plaintiff was a virgin, and describing several
sexual acts in great detail. In September 1999, the Honorable
Francis J. Orlando, A.J.S.C. issued an order granting leave for
Defendant Evan Laine and his law firm, Gold & Laine, P.C. to be
relieved as counsel to Ms. Perry's mother. In March 2000,
Plaintiff twice attempted to file criminal charges against
Defendants Evan Laine and Jeffrey Gold, a partner at Mr. Laine's
law firm, for perjury, harassment, conspiracy and other charges.
The Honorable Jeffrey Karl, J.M.C. and the Honorable John
McFeeley, J.M.C. found that there was no probable cause on either
occasion. In July 2000, Ms. Perry filed a statement with the
Cherry Hill Police Department accusing Judge Karl of conspiring
and discriminating against her. She even attempted to file
ethical charges against Judge Karl before the Advisory Committee
of Judicial Conduct. All charges against Judge Karl were declined
and/or found meritless.
In March 2001, Plaintiff filed an ethics complaint against
Defendant Evan Laine, Esq. Defendant Carl D. Poplar, Esq.,
representing Mr. Laine, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, which was granted. In April 2001, Plaintiff
filed an ethics grievance against Defendant Poplar, which was
also dismissed. In July 2001, Plaintiff sent letters to the New
Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services and Cherry Hill Police
Department alleging that the Laines had neglected their teenage
children by leaving them home alone.
In October 2001, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Defendants Evan Laine, Jeffrey Gold, Gold & Laine, P.C., Michele Laine (Evan Laine's wife), Christy Cicalese (an employee
of Gold & Laine, P.C.), Carl Poplar, and Poplar & Eastlack, the
predecessor firm to Carl D. Poplar, P.C. Ms. Perry later sought
to add Defendant Brandon Laine, son of Evan and Michele Laine, as
a defendant. The Honorable Stephen M. Orlofsky dismissed the
entire case, with prejudice, on March 27, 2002. Plaintiff sought
reconsideration of the dismissal and a recusal of Judge Orlofsky,
both of which Judge Orlofsky dismissed. Ms. Perry appealed the
case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
and the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Orlofsky on April 24, 2003.
In 2002 and 2003, Plaintiff filed complaints against Defendants
with the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, Case No.
CAM-L005235-02, and with the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer
County, Case No. MER-L-803-03. The Honorable John A. Fratto,
J.S.C. dismissed the Camden County complaint and the Honorable
Linda Feinberg, A.J.S.C. dismissed the Mercer County complaint.
Ms. Perry appealed Judge Fratto's decision and also filed another
complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court, Camden County
in February 2004. However, Defendants were never served with this
complaint. Plaintiff also instituted charges against Evan and
Michele Laine in Cherry Hill Municipal Court in February 2004.
On August 4, 2004, Judge Fratto ordered that Ms. Perry "shall
be restrained and prohibited from filing and/or instituting
lawsuits, Complaints or other legal proceedings which are under
and/or subject to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, whether they be Civil, Criminal, Quasi Criminal and/or
Administrative, against . . . Gold & Laine, P.C.; Jeffrey E.
Gold, Esquire, Evan E. Laine, Esquire; Carl D. Poplar, P.C.; Carl
D. Poplar, Esquire, Christy Cicalese; Michele [sic] Laine,
Brandon Laine; and Jessica Laine" without prior approval of a
Judge of the Superior Court. Gold & Laine v. Perry, Docket No.
L-1402-04, Order For Restraints (Aug. 4, 2004). The only exception to Judge Fratto's
order is that Ms. Perry "is permitted to file or institute
lawsuits, Complaints, legal proceedings, without prior approval,
through an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New
Jersey who has duly filed an appearance on her behalf in each
proceeding and said attorney will sign each pleading and/or
document regarding the Complaints, lawsuits and other legal
On September 10, 2004, Judge Bernardin, a Municipal Court Judge
in Cherry Hill, wrote Ms. Perry a letter indicating that he will
"not be making a probable cause determination with regard to
[her] pending complaints" because Judge Fratto's August 4, 2004
Order precludes him from doing so. He also informed Ms. Perry
that "[p]ursuant to the Order [she] can make application to Judge
Fratto" and that "[he] will await direction from the Superior
Court." Letter from Honorable Daniel Bernardin to Victoria L.
Perry of Sept. 10, 2004.
On September 29, 2004, Judge Fratto issued an Amended Order
with the same terms as the August 4, 2004 Order but which also
designated the Honorable John McFeeley, III, P.J.M.C. as the
judge to review any Municipal Court complaint filed by Ms. Perry
against any of the aforementioned defendants. Gold & Laine v.
Perry, Docket No. L-1402-04, Amended Order (Sept. 29, 2004).
Plaintiff filed another complaint against Defendants in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
November 24, 2004. The complaint, docketed as Case No. 04-CV-5842
and encompassing the same allegations made herein, was dismissed
by the Honorable Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. on December 10, 2004
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). On December 21, 2004,
Plaintiff filed a complaint and one day later, on December 22,
2004, filed the instant nine-count complaint, which was denominated as an amended
complaint. Both were assigned a new docket number: Case No.
Ms. Perry's most current complaint in case number 04-CV-6255
asserted claims for "Harassment," "Conspiracy against Civil
Rights by Case Fixing in Municipal Court," "Conspiracy against
Civil Rights by Case Fixing in Camden County Superior Court,"
"Conspiracy Against Civil Rights by Abuse of Process," "Fraud
Upon the Court," "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,"
"Fraud," "Conspiracy Against Rights By Endangerment: Knowingly
Creating a Dangerous Environment for a Repeat Auto Accident," and
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981, against Gold & Laine,
P.C., Carl D. Poplar, P.A., Jeffrey E. Gold, Esq., Evan E. Laine,
Esq., Carl D. Poplar, Esq., Christy A. Cicalese, Michele Laine,
Brandon Laine and Jessica Laine. Am. Compl.
On January 3, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under
Rule 56, and a motion to have Ms. Perry declared a vexatious
litigator. Contemporaneous with filing the motion, Defendants
issued a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11(c)(1)(A) enclosing a proposed form of Rule 11 Motion, which
was not filed with the Court. In accordance with the Rule, Ms.
Perry was advised that ...