United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
D. Crabtree United States District Judge
plaintiff Jonathan King asks the court to reconsider
issues that it already considered and decided more than a
year ago, after receiving written submissions from the
parties and conducting two in-person hearings. Again, the
court denies the relief Mr. King seeks with his current
King's current motions continue to ask the court to
consider frivolous arguments for setting aside the
Stipulation of Dismissal that the parties filed almost two
years ago on December 14, 2017 (Doc. 73). As the court
previously concluded, Mr. King's “assertions that
defendant did not comply with its obligations under the
parties' settlement agreements and that defendant
fraudulently filed the Stipulation of Dismissal are utterly
baseless.” Doc. 102 at 14. Mr. King's new filings
don't change that conclusion.
King has filed two motions: (1) a “Motion for Default
Judg[ ]ment for Breach of Contract and Fraud” (Doc.
104), and (2) a “Motion for Hearing” (Doc. 105).
Mr. King's Motion for Default Judgment asks the court to
enter default judgment against defendant. The court denies
the request for default judgment. Mr. King hasn't
satisfied any of the procedural or substantive requirements
for securing a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55. Most notably, Mr. King can't establish that
defendant has “failed to plead or otherwise
defend” this lawsuit. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).
King's motion also cites Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). This Rule
allows a court to “relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding” based on “fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). As discussed, the court already has
considered Mr. King's allegations of fraud thoroughly.
Doc. 102 at 4-11. And, the court has rejected them.
Id. Mr. King's current motion provides no reason
to set aside any of the court's conclusions.
King's motion also refers to “newly acquired
evidence.” Doc. 104 at 2. To the extent Mr. King asks
the court to set aside the court's previous Order under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence, the
court denies that request. Mr. King's motion simply
rehashes the same arguments to support his baseless claim
that his lawyer and defendant fraudulently filed the
Stipulation of Dismissal. The only “new evidence”
he asserts in his motion is a claim that, on August 15, 2019,
he learned that his lawyer (Larry G. Michel) and
defendant's lawyer (Peter S. Johnston) were members of
the same fraternity. Doc. 104 at 2. But Mr. King never
explains why this fact-assuming it's true-supports
setting aside the Stipulation of Dismissal. It doesn't
tend to show that Mr. Michel or defendant acted fraudulently
or engaged in any other conduct that requires the court to
set aside the court's previous Order or the parties'
Stipulation of Dismissal. The court thus denies Mr.
King's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 104). Also, the
court denies Mr. King's Motion for Hearing (Doc. 105).
Mr. King provides no reason for the court to hold a hearing
on his rehashed and frivolous arguments.
the court considered whether Mr. King, by asserting frivolous
arguments, warranted sanctions. See Doc. 102 at
12-14 (denying defendant's motion for sanctions but
warning Mr. King that if he makes “other similar
filings that contain unfounded allegations, the court will
not view it in such a forgiving way”). Disregarding
that warning, Mr. King again has filed a motion containing
unfounded allegations. The court finds that an award of
sanctions is appropriate here-especially because the court
previously warned Mr. King not to engage in this conduct in
the future. Nevertheless, the court, for now, elects not to
sanction Mr. King. But the court warns Mr. King: This
case is closed. Any future filings like the ones decided by
this Order will result in monetary sanctions against
IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff
Jonathan King's “Motion for Default Judg[ ]ment for
Breach of Contract and Fraud” (Doc. 104) is denied.
IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiff Jonathan
King's “Motion for Hearing” (Doc. 105) is
IS SO ORDERED.
 Although the docket reflects that Mr.
King is represented by counsel, Larry G. Michel, plaintiff
filed the current motions pro se. Also, the court confirmed
with Mr. King at an in-person hearing on September 27, 2018,
that Mr. Michel no longer represents him in this matter.
Because Mr. King proceeds pro se, the court construes his
pleadings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding that courts must
construe pro se litigant's pleadings liberally and hold
them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers). But, under this standard, the court does
not assume the role as Mr. King's advocate. Garrett