ROGER L. HUNT, United States District Judge
Before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Consider Late Response Timely (#9), filed December 23, 2002 and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (#6), filed November 1, 2002, and Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (#8), filed November 15, 2002 and Application for Default Judgment (#10), filed January 10, 2003. The Court has also considered Plaintiff's Opposition (#7), filed November 7, 2002.
A. Motion to Consider Late Opposition as Timely
Defendant asks the Court to consider its late opposition to Plaintiff's motion for sanctions as timely. The response in question was due on December 3, 2002 but was filed 20 days late because of a combination of untimely personal matters and previously scheduled professional matters. Noting that, given the same circumstances, it would do the same for Plaintiff, the Court will grant Defendant's motion and order the clerk to file the opposition attached to Defendant's motion as an opposition.
B. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the presentation of a pleading to the court by a party is a certification that
to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, . . . the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
Rule 11(b)(2). Rule 11 empowers federal courts to impose sanctions upon the signers of paper where a) the paper is "frivolous," or b) the paper is filed for an "improper purpose." Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 914 F.2d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1990). A paper is "frivolous" if it is "both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry." Id.
Rule 11 requires that the advocate of a legal argument make "reasonable inquiry" to form a good-faith belief in the merit of an argument presented to the court. Whether a legal argument has merit is judged by an objective reasonableness standard:
[T]he subjective intent of the pleader or movant to file a meritorious document is of no moment. The standard is reasonableness. The "reasonable man" against which conduct is tested is a competent attorney admitted to practice before the district court.
Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, 780 F.2d 823, 830 (9th Cir. 1986).
Over the last 4 months, the Court has seen 9 cases similar to that of Plaintiff Cybulski's. The cases are not only similar in issue to be decided, but the submitted complaints are virtually identical — even down to the footnotes. On various occasions, the Court has stated in its orders granting either summary judgment or dismissal in Defendant's favor that, upon proper motion, the Court would impose Rule 11 sanctions.
The Court now finds itself in that situation. There is no question regarding the frivolous nature of Plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff raises issues that are either not within the purview of this Court's jurisdiction or that have long since been decided. No reasonable person could believe such a suit was not frivolous and meritless. The Court will grant Defendant's motion.
Because counsel for Defendant fails to provide any detail as to the cost involved in defending Plaintiff's meritless suit, the Court is uncomfortable granting sanctions of an amount merely because Defendant requests it. However, the Court notes that in Wilcox v. C.I.R., 848 F.2d 1007 (9th Cir. 1988), and Cook v. Spillman, 806 F.2d 948, 949 (9th Cir. 1986), the Court granted the United States's request that $1,500 in damages be awarded as a sanction. Given the passage of time, the Court feels it is appropriate to sanction Plaintiff $2,000.
C. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Rule 11 not only never mentions Rule 11, but it alleges no sanctionable conduct nor does it suggest a standard by which any such allegations would be measured. The Court finds Plaintiff's motion frivolous, as well.
D. Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment
Predicated upon Defendant's late filing, Plaintiff also applies for entry of default judgment on his motion for Rule 11 sanctions. However, because the Court deems Defendant's opposition timely, Plaintiff's application shall be denied as moot.
Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Consider Late Opposition as Timely (#9) is GRANTED and the clerk is directed to file the opposition attached to the motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (#6) is GRANTED and sanctions in the amount of $2,000 are to be assessed against Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (#8) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Default Judgment (#10) is DENIED as moot.