Dennis J Amoroso and Gerde J Amoroso

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1Miller was allowed to represent the debtors in this case pro hoc vice. While he identified himself as
“attorney for debtors,” his motion was not filed on their behalf and therefore was not within the scope of his
authorization to practice here.
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
DENNIS and GERDE AMOROSO, No. 04-11303
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
Memorandum on Countermotion for Sanctions
_________________
July 10 and 11 of this year were busy days for attorney Richard Miller of the Miller Law Firm,
Kansas City, Missouri. On the 10th, he filed a 40-page motion for sanctions on his firm’s behalf seeking some
$10 million from three opposing counsel in this case. On the 11th, he filed motions to compel the production
of documents against all three counsel and a motion seeking the court’s recusal. That was a lot of activity
from someone not admitted to practice in this court.1
The motion was not very flattering to the court. Miller basically alleged that the three attorneys
entered into a conspiracy to deny his firm a fair and impartial hearing by saying bad things about him to the
court. This presupposes that the court can be swayed by representations of counsel and does not know the
difference between allegations and evidence.
On July 12, one of the attorneys, John H. MacConaghy, faxed a letter to Miller demanding that
Entered on Docket
August 17, 2007
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 04-11303 Doc# 576 Filed: 08/17/07 Entered: 08/17/07 08:47:30 Page 1 of
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Miller withdraw his motion for sanctions by 5:00 P.M. on July 13. At 5:22 P.M., MacConaghy filed the
instant countermotion seeking to strike Miller’s motion and recover sanctions pursuant to FRBP 9011. On
July 27, 2007, this time properly through a proper member of the bar and properly reciting that it was filed on
behalf of the Miller Firm and not the debtors, all of Miller’s motions were withdrawn.
The court does not believe that MacConaghy’s motion is properly before the court. FRBP
9011(c)(1) provides that a motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other requests; the motion
filed by MacConaghy also opposed Miller’s motion and asked that it be striken. Moreover, the same rule
gives an offending party 21 days to withdraw the pleading; the court does not know where MacConaghy got
his 24-hour deadline.
The court could of course set the matter for sanctions hearing on its own motion, but it really only
wants this mishegas to go away. Miller is warned that while the court is slow to anger its tolerance of
nonsense and insults is not limitless and that he is sorely testing the court’s limits. The court guarantees him an
unhappy return trip from California if he ever again files a pleading in this court on behalf of anyone other than
the debtors or himself without becoming a proper member of the bar of this court.
The countermotion will accordingly be denied without prejudice. Any party may submit an
appropriate form of order if one is desired.
Dated: August 16, 2007
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 04-11303 Doc# 576 Filed: 08/17/07 Entered: 08/17/07 08:47:30 Page 2 of
2