33668-0089/LEGAL13018940.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-02528-JLK-CBS
CHRISTOPHER BRAY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QFA ROYALTIES LLC,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS OF DENIAL OF MOTION
Defendant QFA Royalties LLC (“Quiznos”), by its attorneys, hereby moves for
sanctions, as follows:
In a late-filed reply brief, plaintiffs' counsel made serious misrepresentations and
material omissions regarding, among other things, the terms of the settlement reached
between Quiznos and some of the plaintiffs. Describing the terms of the settlement
breached the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement, violated the duty of
candor to the tribunal, and violated the long-standing judicial principle that parties not
disclose terms of settlement discussions to the finder of fact. What is more, it can only be
viewed as an outrageous end around of the Court's Order prohibiting them from trying
their claims in the press. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s conduct mandates the imposition of
sanctions. The sanction should be denial of the pending motion and whatever other relief
the Court deems appropriate.
Case 1:06-cv-02528-JLK Document 40 Filed 02/11/2007 Page 1 of 9
Bray et al v QFA Royalties
Doc. 40
Dockets.Justia.com
33668-0089/LEGAL13018940.1
On page 4 of the so-called Pre Trial Brief1 [No. 38] the three non-settling
plaintiffs, through counsel, purported to describe the terms of the settlement reached
between Quiznos and the other plaintiffs. They left out material terms in the description.
They recounted that Quiznos agreed to “withdraw and forbear from pursuing the
terminations against [the settling plaintiffs] based upon the TSFA publication of the
Baber-suicide materials” and that “Quiznos agreed to dismiss the individually-filed suits
against these plaintiffs in Denver District Court.” As for the settling plaintiffs’
obligations, they recounted only that “these plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their claims
in this case [