Zheng v. Trinity Management LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
KELLERMAN ZHENG, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) Civil Action No. 24-CV-12704-AK
v. )
)
TRINITY MANAGEMENT, AND )
TURK & MILONE ATTORNEYS AT )
LAW, )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
KELLEY, D.J.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 54] for three allegedly false and
misleading statements by defense counsel in their opposition to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to
File in Forma Pauperis. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 54] is
DENIED.
Plaintiff moves for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. Rule
11(c)(1) states, in part, “[i]f, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court
determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on
any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” In turn,
Rule 11(b) provides, in summary, that by presenting papers to a court, an attorney certifies that,
to the best of their knowledge, (1) those papers are not presented for an improper purpose, (2) the
legal propositions are warranted by law or not frivolous, (3) the factual contentions have or will
likely have evidentiary support, and (4) denials of factual information are warranted by evidence
Case 1:24-cv-12704-AK Document 56 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 3

2
or are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information. Rule 11(b) “is not a strict liability
provision”; “[a] lawyer who makes an inaccurate factual representation must, at the very least, be
culpably careless to commit a violation.” Young v. City of Providence, 404 F.3d. 33, 39 (1st Cir.
2005).
Here, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that he provided defense counsel with
notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to filing his motion with
the Court. However, defense counsel has not opposed the motion on these grounds and the
notice provision can be applied flexibly. Ark. Tchr. Ret. Sys. v. State St. Corp., 25 F.4th 55, 64
(1st Cir. 2022) (citing cases). Therefore, the Court will assess Plaintiff’s specific contentions.
The statements made by defense counsel in their filings adhere to Rule 11(b). First,
defense counsel’s statement that Plaintiff “continues to make representations on behalf of his
mother” is accurate. [Dkt. 52 at 1]. Plaintiff’s request to file in forma pauperis was for an appeal
of this Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. [Dkt. 51]. This Court denied the motion to
dismiss in part because “a pro se party cannot represent people other than him or herself.” [Dkt.
37]. By appealing on both his and his mother’s behalf, Plaintiff is representing both himself and
his mother. Therefore, defense counsel’s statement is accurate and does not violate Rule 11(b).
Second, defense counsel’s statements that Plaintiff “has not paid any rent since he made a
single payment of $559.00 on December 12, 2024” and that Plaintiff “misrepresent[ed]” his
monthly rental expenses do not violate Rule 11(b). [Dkt. 52 at 1]. As evidence, Plaintiff submits
an affidavit stating that he “will resume payment of rent for the month of April 2025” and has
“withheld ten (10) months of rent payments.” [Dkt. 54, Ex. A]. Plaintiff also included a check
for April 2025 rent. [Id.]. Plaintiff admits that he was not paying rent prior to April 2025.
Further, defense counsel explained that the April 2025 payment was not accepted because it was
Case 1:24-cv-12704-AK Document 56 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 3

3
issued after the initiation of an eviction proceeding. [Dkt. 55 at 2]. Given this evidence, the
Court finds that defense counsel’s statements did not violate Rule 11(b).
Third, Plaintiff takes issue with defense counsel’s inclusion of information regarding his
housing court proceeding. Plaintiff does not challenge the accuracy of the information.
Therefore, the Court interprets Plaintiff as alleging that inclusion this information is in violation
of Rule 11(b)(1) – submission for an improper purpose. Under Rule 11(b)(1) improper purposes
include “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” In
context, the inclusion of information regarding Plaintiff’s housing court proceeding does not aim
at an improper purpose. It adds context and detail to defense counsel’s assertion that Plaintiff
misrepresented his rental expenses. As such, it is also not a violation of Rule 11(b).
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions [Dkt. 54] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 23, 2025 /s/ Angel Kelley
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-12704-AK Document 56 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 3