UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2321
STACY CARABALLO, for herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
KELLY JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN M. RUSSELL, SR.; BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A.,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
SHOREH BAGBEH; BLUE VIEW CORPORATION, d/b/a SB Classic,
Inc.; LOAN SERVICING GROUP LLC; K.H.F. LENDING, LLC; INSTANT
FUNDING, LLC; SCOTT WELLINGTON RUDOLPH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (7:10-cv-00122-H)
Submitted: May 31, 2013 Decided: June 10, 2013
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher W. Livingston, White Oak, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Gary S. Parsons, Whitney S. Waldenberg, TROUTMAN
SANDERS L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Stacy Caraballo appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the North Carolina Collection Agency Act against Stephen
M. Russell, Sr., and his law firm, Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A.
(collectively, “Attorney Defendants”). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and
the joint appendix and find no legal or factual basis to call
into question the district court’s conclusion that the Attorney
Defendants may not be held liable under either statute.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Caraballo v. Russell, No. 7:10-cv-00122-H (E.D.N.C. Mar.
31, 2011).
Caraballo’s counsel, Christopher Livingston, also
appeals the district court’s order imposing sanctions against
him, the order and judgment denying his motion for
reconsideration of the order imposing sanctions, and the amount
of sanctions assessed. This court reviews the imposition of
sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for an abuse of discretion.
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990);
Morris v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., 448 F.3d 268, 277 (4th Cir.
2006). Sanctions may be imposed against attorneys who file
pleadings that are not well grounded in fact or law or who file
3
pleadings for improper purposes such as harassment or delay.
Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393; In re Kunstler, 914 F.2d 505,
513 (4th Cir. 1990). “The legal argument must have absolutely
no chance of success under the existing precedent to contravene
. . . [R]ule [11(b)(2)] . . . [and f]actual allegations fail to
satisfy Rule 11(b)(3) when they are unsupported by any
information obtained prior to filing.” Morris, 448 F.3d at 277
(internal quotation marks omitted).
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that Livingston filed the case against the Attorney Defendants
for improper purposes, or in concluding that the claims against
the Attorney Defendants were without legal or factual support.
The district court carefully considered the factors we outlined
in Kunstler, and did not abuse its discretion in setting the
amount of sanctions. 914 F.2d at 523. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order imposing sanctions against
Livingston, the order and judgment denying Livingston’s motion
for reconsideration of the court’s order imposing sanctions, and
the amount of sanctions. Caraballo v. Russell, No. 7:10-cv-
00122-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 2011; June 14, 2012).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
4
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5