inappropriate pleadings produced a "colossal waste of time" and expense to defendant and the
court. The costs "failed to deter plaintiff from engaging in his frivolous conduct so the court now
grants defendants the sum of $1,000.00 for the costs of the motion . . ."
The parties were on notice that the case was calendared for a hearing to determine whether
the imposition of sanctions is proper. Based on the evidence presented, the testimony and the
demeanor of the parties, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions is proper.
Petitioner clearly violated a court order.
Petitioner offered, and respondent accepted, a rent credit of $974.00 for seeking overlapping
rents in two different petitions. The Court accepts the sum of $974.00 agreed upon by the parties
offered in consideration for commencing two petitions seeking overlapping rents.
The Court finds that petitioner failed to notify the marshal of the Decision/Order of June 20,
2019. It was contrary to law for the notice of eviction to issue after the warrant was vacated. The
manager's claim that she was not aware that the warrant was vacated is unavailing. Petitioner was
represented by counsel on June 20, 2019. Counsel was aware that the warrant was vacated.
Furthermore, it is incredible that someone "canceled" the first case, and then the manager herself
requested that the marshal issue a notice of eviction on the "canceled" case.
The Court sanctions the petitioner a sum of $50.00 per day, commencing one day after the
Decision/Order of June 20, 2019, and every day that petitioner did not notify the marshal that the
warrant was vacated. The sanction period is from June 21, 2019 through July 31, 2019 when the
marshal's office was informed during the hearing that the warrant was vacated.