DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
MELVIN CARTER, 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
Plaintiff, 
 
║ 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
 
 
 
║ 
v. 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
EXCEL CONSTRUCTION AND 
 
║ 
MAINTENANCE VI, INC., 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
║ 
 
 
 
Defendant.  
║ 
________________________________________________ ║ 
 
TO: 
Namosha Boykin, Esq. 
Micol L. Morgan, Esq. 
ORDER 
 
 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed to 
Trial on All Issues Outside the Arbitration Agreement” (the “Motion to Lift Stay”) filed on 
January 2, 2025 by Attorney Namosha Boykin on behalf of Plaintiff Melvin Carter, Dkt. No. 
43, and the Motion for Sanctions, filed on January 30, 2025, by Attorney Micol Morgan on 
behalf of Excel Construction and Maintenance VI, Inc. (“Excel”), Dkt. No. 46. On February 12, 
2025, the Court held a hearing on both motions. For the reasons that follow, the Court will 
deny the Motion to Lift Stay and grant the Motion for Sanctions. 
BACKGROUND 
 
On May 19, 2021, Mr. Carter filed a six-count Complaint against Excel, his former 
employer, alleging that Excel engaged in discriminatory hiring, promotion, and 
compensation practices, discriminatory treatment of non-white employees, religious 
discrimination, and wrongful, retaliatory termination. Dkt. No. 1. As relief, he requested 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 1 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
various damages and repayment of “the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney’s 
fees and costs.” Id.  
 
Rather than file a responsive pleading, Excel moved to compel arbitration on all 
claims and stay the proceedings. Dkt. No. 8. On October 8, 2021, the Court entered an Order 
finding that Mr. Carter’s employment agreement contained an enforceable provision that 
compelled arbitration on all of the claims in Mr. Carter’s complaint. Dkt. No. 18. Accordingly, 
the Court granted Excel’s motion. Id. Throughout the pendency of the arbitration, the Court 
received numerous Status Reports from the parties. The most recent status report was 
jointly filed by the parties on August 26, 2024. Dkt. No. 42. In it, they stated that the arbitrator 
awarded an Interim Award and that a Final Award would issue after the parties filed and 
served any “documentation evidencing or disputing the amount of damages and attorneys’ 
fees sought in connection with the arbitration.” Id. 
 
That is the sum of the procedural history in this Court prior to Mr. Carter’s Motion to 
Lift Stay. However, the Court will summarize—as relevant for the purposes of the present 
motions—the procedural history of the arbitration, based on exhibits Excel attached to its 
response to Mr. Carter’s Motion to Lift Stay, which Plaintiff confirmed are documents from 
the arbitration.  
I. 
Procedural History of Arbitration Based on Excel’s Exhibits 
 
As part of his employment with Excel, Mr. Carter signed a Dispute Resolution 
Agreement (hereinafter the “Arbitration Agreement” or “Agreement”). Dkt. No. 44-13 at 8-9. 
The Agreement contained a section entitled “Matters Arbitrable” which listed several claims 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 2 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
that, if alleged, were subject to arbitration. Id. The claims included “any claim for costs, fees, 
or other expenses or relief, including attorney’s fees.”  
 
Attorney Boykin signed a “Demand for Arbitration,” in December 2021, which she 
filed with the American Arbitration Association. The Demand stated that Mr. Carter was 
seeking attorney’s fees and costs, among other damages. Dkt. No. 44-1. 
 
An arbitration hearing took place throughout the latter months of 2023. Dkt. No. 44-
2 at 1. On July 29, 2024, following the hearing and submission of post-hearing briefs, the 
Arbitrator issued a “Findings of Fact and Interim Award of Arbitrator.” Id. The Arbitrator 
found in favor of Mr. Carter on one of his racial discrimination claims and his wrongful 
discharge claim, but denied all of his other claims. Id. at 25. The Arbitrator did not specify the 
amount of damages Mr. Carter would be awarded. Instead, she set a schedule for the parties 
to present evidence on and brief damages. Id. The Arbitrator provided Mr. Carter fourteen 
“days after receipt of this Interim Award to file and serve any documentation supporting or 
evidencing only the amount of damages and attorneys’ fees he seeks to recover in connection 
with this arbitration.” Id. The Arbitrator also found that the “costs of arbitration” were to be 
borne by Excel. Id. 
 
On August 13, 2024, Attorney Boykin filed a motion seeking an extension of time 
through August 14, 2024 to file “evidence of [Mr. Carter’s] damages and attorneys’ fees,” due 
to a power outage on August 12, 2024 that prevented her from timely filing the evidence. 
Dkt. No. 44-3. That motion was granted. Dkt. No. 44-4 at 1. However, according to Excel’s 
September 3, 2024 motion to the Arbitrator to disallow an award of damages, Mr. Carter 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 3 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 4 
 
 
failed to meet the August 14 deadline. Id. at 2. On August 20, 2024, the Arbitrator directed 
Mr. Carter to advise her of the status of his submission, but Mr. Carter did not respond. Id. 
Therefore, Excel moved to “disallow [Mr. Carter] an award of damages in this arbitration due 
to his abject failure to comply with the Arbitrator’s Interim Award[.]” Id. at 2-3.  
Attorney Boykin filed a response opposing Excel’s motion to disallow damages on 
September 10, 2024. Dkt. No. 44-5. She argued that the case should be decided on the merits. 
Moreover, the grounds for her delay were excusable and non-prejudicial—namely that a 
power outage, followed by a tropical storm (which led to several more power outages), 
prevented her from timely filing the appropriate documents, and that she “also faced other 
periods of unavailability and reduced work hours” because she was hospitalized. Id. The 
motion requested that Excel be sanctioned for violating Rule 11 by failing to cite to law in its 
motion to disallow damages and requested an extension to file the evidence through 
September 13, 2024. Id.  
 
The Arbitrator denied the request to disallow damages and the request for sanctions 
and provided Mr. Carter until October 15, 2024 to file any evidence related to damages. Dkt. 
No. 44-6. On October 16, 2024, Excel again moved to disallow damages because Mr. Carter 
“did not respond to the Arbitrator’s Order, either by providing the required documentation 
. . . or requesting a further extension of the deadline.” Dkt. No. 44-7. On November 1, 2024, 
Attorney Boykin filed a response in which she stated that she faced “unforeseen medical 
complications” which kept her off-island throughout much of October 2024. Dkt. No. 44-8. 
Accordingly, she requested an extension through November 5, 2024 to file an opposition to 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 4 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 5 
 
 
the motion to disallow damages, and requested additional time to file evidence of damages 
“due to the onset of unforeseen issues.” Id. The Arbitrator denied Excel’s second motion to 
disallow damages and Mr. Carter’s request for an extension. Dkt. Nos. 44-9, 44-10. Instead, 
the Arbitrator determined that she would award damages based on the hearing record only. 
Id.  
 
The Arbitrator issued a Final Award on November 8, 2024, in which she found that 
Mr. Carter was entitled to back pay and lost benefits, in addition to pre-judgment interest. 
Dkt. No. 44-11. Mr. Carter “was also awarded reasonable attorney fees and given fourteen 
(14) days after receipt of the Interim Award to file and serve” evidence regarding his 
attorney’s fees, but “[d]espite extensions granted, no documentation was submitted upon 
which to base an award of attorneys fees.” Id. The Arbitrator also found that there was 
“insufficient evidence in the record to establish [Mr. Carter’s] demand for compensatory 
damages.” Id.  
 
On November 12, 2024, Attorney Boykin filed a “Motion for Recalculation of 
Economic Damages to Conform to the Terms of the Arbitration Agreement.” Dkt. No. 44-12. 
In it, she noted that Mr. Carter incurred “expenses as a result of this arbitration and those 
expenses were not disallowed in the Interim Award, but were not reflected in the Final 
Award.” Id. She argued: 
the record clearly reflects that subsequent to his wrongful termination, [Mr. 
Carter] had to relocate to find suitable substitute employment. The record also 
reflects that he returned to the Virgin Islands for the in-person hearings and 
was present virtually for all remote hearings. The record reflects that he paid 
for rental of the conference room for the in-person hearing and was 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 5 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 6 
 
 
represented by counsel throughout these proceedings. In accordance with the 
parties’ Arbitration Agreement, these expenses must be born [sic] by [Excel]. 
To do otherwise would constitute an impermissible re-write of the Agreement, 
which would exceed the Arbitrator’s authority and be inconsistent with the 
prior Orders in this case.  
 
Id. Consequently, Attorney Boykin requested that the “economic damages award be 
corrected by recalculating it to include all” the economic damages reflected in the record. Id. 
Those damages totaled $29,289.21. Id.1 
 
The motion for recalculation contained a footnote in which Attorney Boykin admitted 
that she bore some blame for the delay in submitting the evidence related to damages 
because she encountered certain delays, but that those delays were excusable. The delays 
included a year of unanticipated emergency hospitalizations from April 21, 2024 through 
October 19, 2024. Id. The footnote further stated that “at no point in time did the Arbitrator 
deny [Mr. Carter] his economic damages.” Id.  
 
In response to the motion for recalculation, Excel filed an opposition brief noting that 
Mr. Carter’s calculation of fees was unsupported by any evidence, particularly regarding his 
request for $27,737.50 in attorney’s fees, which request was made without citation to any 
documentation or support. Dkt. No. 44-13. 
 
1 Per Attorney Boykin’s motion, this is the “total unaccounted economic damages.” Dkt. No. 
44-12. It accounts for Attorney Boykin’s travel and lodging costs, the conference room 
reservation, and printing costs, as well as $27,737.50 in legal fees. Id. However, the motion 
seems to include a request for an additional $3,606.58 to compensate Mr. Carter for his 
“travel” and “lost emoluments from successor employer due to need to attend hearings.” 
Because that $3,606.58 was not included in the “total,” it is not clear exactly how much Mr. 
Carter was requesting be included in a modified award. 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 6 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 7 
 
 
 
On December 12, 2024, the Arbitrator issued a “Disposition for Application of 
Modification of Award,” (the “December 12 Disposition” or “Disposition”) in which she 
clarified that Mr. Carter should have been reimbursed for the cost of the conference room in 
which the arbitration hearing was held, but found that, “[i]n all other respects [her] Award 
dated November 8, 2024, is reaffirmed.” Dkt. No. 44-14.  
II. 
The Motion to Lift Stay 
 
Mr. Carter’s January 2, 2025 Motion to Lift Stay set out the following facts: On 
November 8, 2024, the Arbitrator entered a Final Award in which she found “that Carter had 
suffered race-based discrimination and was wrongfully discharged.” Dkt. No. 43 at 3 (citing 
Dkt. No. 43-1 at 2). Nevertheless, Mr. Carter sought to modify the final award. Id. at 2. On 
December 12, 2024, the Arbitrator issued a “modified final Arbitration Award.” Id.  According 
to Attorney Boykin, the Arbitrator found that the Arbitration Agreement was “limited.” Id. at 
3-4. The motion quotes the December 12 Disposition, which provided that Excel was to repay 
Mr. Carter for the cost of reserving the conference room used for the arbitration, but which 
otherwise reaffirmed the November 8, 2024 Final Award. Id.2 Mr. Carter argued that, “[i]n 
rendering that award, the Arbitrator found that Carter’s costs and expenses were not within 
the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.” Id. Further, because Mr. Carter is entitled to costs 
 
2 Under the block quote restating the terms of the December 12 Disposition, Attorney Boykin 
cites to Exhibit 3. Dkt. No. 43 at 2. But the third exhibit filed with the motion was an email 
from the “Manager of ADR Services” that seemingly attached the Disposition; the Disposition 
was not included as an exhibit to the Motion to Lift Stay. 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 7 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 8 
 
 
and attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 5 V.I.C. § 541, “the issue is ripe to proceed to 
trial before the District Court.” Id.  
 
In addition to the exhibit described in footnote two, supra, the motion attached as 
exhibits the November 8 Final Award and Mr. Carter’s “Motion for Recalculation of Economic 
Damages to Conform to the Terms of the Arbitration Agreement,” Dkt. Nos. 43-1, 43-2. 
III. 
The Brief in Opposition 
 
In response, Excel argued that the Arbitrator expressly ruled in her Interim and Final 
Award that Mr. Carter would be “‘awarded reasonable attorney fees.’” Dkt. No. 44 at 4 
(quoting Dkt. No. 44-2 at 25). Indeed, attorney’s fees and costs had been treated as an 
arbitrable issue throughout the arbitration proceeds. They were explicitly included as an 
arbitrable matter in the Arbitration Agreement and were requested in Mr. Carter’s demand 
for arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association. Id.  at 2-3.  
 
After issuing the Interim Award, the Arbitrator gave Mr. Carter fourteen days “to 
serve documentation supporting the amount of damages and attorneys’ fees he seeks to 
recover in connection with this arbitration.” Id. (quoting Dkt. No. 44-2 at 25). Mr. Carter 
failed to timely comply with that timeline and instead sought and obtained an extension. Id. 
Thereafter, Mr. Carter again missed the deadline to file evidence related to attorney’s fees 
and was again granted an extension after Excel moved to disallow damages. Id. at 4-5. Mr. 
Carter missed that deadline and again moved for an extension. Id. at 5. The Arbitrator denied 
Mr. Carter’s request and ruled that the Final Award would be based “on the hearing record 
only.” Id. (quoting Dkt. No. 44-10). The Arbitrator awarded damages to Mr. Carter but did not 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 8 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 9 
 
 
“award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees because ‘[d]espite extensions granted, no documentation 
was submitted upon which to base an award of attorneys fees.’” Id. at 6 (quoting Dkt. No. 44-
11).  
 
Based on this procedural history, Excel argued that Plaintiff’s request to proceed to 
trial was not only “vexing” but that Mr. Carter’s contention that the Arbitrator found that 
“‘costs and expenses were not within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement,’ [was] patently 
untrue.” Id. at 7 (quoting Dkt. No. 43). The Motion notes that Attorney Morgan communicated 
with Attorney Boykin, “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 concerning the 
propriety of the Motion.” Id. at 7 n.5. 
 
Regarding the stay, Excel argued that arbitration stays “last ‘until such arbitration has 
been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.’” Id. (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 3). Because 
“all of Plaintiff’s claims were fully and finally adjudicated before the Arbitrator, who issued 
a Final Award,” Excel agreed that the stay should be lifted so that the case could be dismissed. 
Id. at 9-10. However, for the same reason, Excel argued Mr. Carter’s request to proceed to 
trial should be denied. Id. 
IV. 
Motion for Sanctions 
 
In its “Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions,” Excel 
noted that the parties filed 14 status reports with the Court during the pendency of their 
arbitration proceedings, none of which contained “any suggestion that the Arbitrator would 
not or had not fully adjudicated all six of Mr. Carter’s claims,” which claims included his 
request for costs and fees. Dkt. No. 47 at 2. That is because, until the Motion to Lift Stay was 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 9 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 10 
 
 
filed, the parties agreed that all of Plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable and were, in fact, fully 
and finally arbitrated. Id. at 3. Thus, Mr. Carter’s contention that “the Arbitrator found that 
Carter’s costs and expenses were not within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement,’ . . . is 
patently untrue.” Id. at 3 (quoting Dkt. No. 43 at 2).  
As Plaintiff was well aware at the time of filing, the Arbitrator’s July 29, 2024 
Interim Award did, in fact, award damages and reasonable attorney’s fees, as 
alluded to in the parties’ August 26, 2024 Joint Status Report. See Exhibit 1. 
Similarly, the Arbitrator’s November 8, 2024 Final Award, which Plaintiff 
referenced in the Motion, confirmed Plaintiff had been “awarded reasonable 
attorney fees and given fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Interim Award 
to file and serve any documentation supporting or evidencing only the amount 
of damages and attorneys’ fees he [sought] to recover in connection with [the] 
arbitration.” [Doc. No. 43-1 at 2]. Although the Arbitrator ultimately held 
Plaintiff forfeited any award of attorneys’ fees because, “[d]espite extensions 
granted, no documentation was submitted upon which to base an award of 
attorney fees”, id., at no point did Plaintiff claim that the issue was not properly 
before the Arbitrator. 
 
Id. (internal brackets in original). 
 
Accordingly, Mr. Carter knew or should have known prior to filing the Motion to Lift 
Stay that the costs and fees he now seeks were considered by the Arbitrator as within the 
scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Id. at 4 The Motion to Lift Stay, therefore, represents a 
third attempt at obtaining legal fees that were only withheld because Mr. Carter failed to 
provide support for them. The motion “grossly misrepresented the facts by omitting critical 
information that undermines his position.” Id. That is why, after reviewing the Motion to Lift 
Stay, on January 8, 2025, Excel served the instant Motion for Sanctions on Plaintiff’s counsel 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 10 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 11 
 
 
with a reference to the 21-day safe-harbor provision contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).3 
Because Mr. Carter failed to withdraw his motion in the 21-day period, Excel filed the instant 
Motion for Sanctions with the Court.  Id. 
 
“‘Put simply, Rule 11 requires a person contemplating filing a paper with the court to 
‘stop, think, and investigate’ before doing so.’” Id. at 4-5 (quoting Wartsila NSD N. Am., Inc. v. 
Hill Int’l, Inc., 315 F. Supp. 2d 623, 627 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2004)). Excel argued that Mr. Carter 
failed to stop and think before filing the Motion to Lift Stay. Id. at 5-7. Moreover, the motion 
was sanctionable because it was filed for an improper purpose and because it contained 
unsupportable factual contentions in violation of Rule 11(b)(1) and (b)(3). Id. (citing Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 11(b)).   
V. 
Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions 
 
Plaintiff’s response4 mostly restated the facts and argument in his Motion to Lift Stay. 
He maintained that “the Arbitrator found that Carter’s costs and expenses were not within 
 
3 Rule 11(c)(2) states that a motion for sanctions “must not be filed or be presented to the 
court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or 
appropriately corrected within 21 days after service[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). 
4 The Court ordered Mr. Carter to file his response to the Motion for Sanctions by February 
7, 2025. Dkt. No. 48. The response was filed with the Court at 12:02 a.m. on February 8, 2025. 
After filing the opposition, Mr. Carter moved the Court for an extension of time through 
February 8, 2025 to file the responsive brief. Dkt. No. 50. In the Motion for Extension of Time, 
Attorney Boykin explained that she experienced “technical difficulties” while filing the 
opposition and that the late filing was not intentional, prejudicial, or motivated by an 
improper purpose and should be considered excusable neglect under Rule 6. Id. (citing Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 6). The Court agrees that the three-minute delay in filing is excusable under the 
circumstances proffered by Attorney Boykin and will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension 
of Time nunc pro tunc to February 7, 2025.   
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 11 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 12 
 
 
the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.” Dkt. No. 49 at 2. The response, which cited to 
exhibits that were not filed, did not address Excel’s allegations that Mr. Carter omitted 
information about the several missed deadlines to submit evidence, nor did it address Excel’s 
contention, supported by exhibits, that the Arbitrator found that Mr. Carter was entitled to 
attorney’s fees. Instead, Attorney Boykin argued, “Excel’s Motion for Sanctions is 
inappropriate, baseless and wholly without merit.” Id. at 3.5 According to Attorney Boykin, 
the Arbitrator found that “the Arbitration Agreement only encompassed and required Excel 
to reimburse Carter the cost of the conference room rental.” Id. Therefore, the Motion for 
Sanctions must be denied because Mr. Carter made no misrepresentation and because Excel 
suffered no harm. Id. Mr. Carter concluded by requesting that Excel reimburse him for his 
costs and expenses “in defending against its frivolous Motion [for Sanctions].” Id. 
VI. 
The Hearing 
A. Arguments on the Motion to Lift Stay 
 
Attorney Boykin opened her argument by stating that the Arbitrator found that the 
only costs covered by the Arbitration Agreement were the costs Mr. Carter expended in 
reserving the conference room where the arbitration hearing was held. Therefore, Mr. 
Carter’s claim for other costs and fees was ripe for trial.  
 
5 The response also stated that “Excel had previously sought to have the Award reduced due 
to a delay caused by the serious illness of Carter’s counsel. The Arbitrator granted that 
request.” Dkt. No. 49 at 3. The Court did not receive any evidence that Excel sought to reduce 
the award, except to the extent that it twice moved to disallow damages, which motions were 
denied. Attorney Boykin did not further elaborate or explain what she meant by this 
statement.  
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 12 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 13 
 
 
 
The Court asked Attorney Boykin how she defined costs and fees. She clarified that 
she was seeking attorney’s fees and costs incurred while arbitrating this case, Mr. Carter’s 
lost wages from attending the arbitration hearing, and his costs for travel and lodging to be 
present at the arbitration.  
 
 The Court then asked Attorney Boykin to explain how her contentions could be true 
given that the Interim and Final Awards provided that Mr. Carter was entitled to attorney’s 
fees and costs so long as such costs were substantiated with evidence. Attorney Boykin 
explained that her Motion to Lift the Stay was based solely on the December 12 Disposition. 
Because the Disposition did not specifically say that the Arbitrator considered costs and fees 
to be within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement, despite her request that the Award be 
recalculated to include those costs and fees, it should be inferred that the Arbitrator 
considered them outside the scope of the Agreement. She then explained that this motion 
was an alternative argument to another motion, which she intended to file, arguing that the 
Final Award should be vacated in part.6 
 
Attorney Morgan responded by explaining that the Arbitrator’s total award included 
only those costs and damages that were proven. The reason Mr. Carter was not awarded 
certain costs, including attorney’s fees, is because he failed to substantiate those fees to the 
 
6 Attorney Boykin did not elaborate on what she would argue in that motion, or how it 
comported with the Motion to Lift Stay. It was filed shortly after the hearing; thereafter 
Attorney Boykin filed an amended motion to vacate the award. See Dkt. Nos. 52; 55. That 
motion contends that the Arbitrator reduced Mr. Carter’s attorney’s fees “as a sanction.” Dkt. 
No. 55 at 13. 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 13 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 14 
 
 
Arbitrator. She suggested that the record was replete with evidence demonstrating that the 
Arbitrator found all of Mr. Carter’s claims, including his request for attorney’s fees and costs, 
to be within the scope of the Agreement. Such evidence could be found in the Arbitrator’s 
Interim and Final Awards.  
 
Attorney Boykin then reemphasized that her Motion to Lift Stay concerned only the 
December 12 Disposition, not any of the Arbitrator’s other findings or awards. While she 
agreed that costs and fees should have been arbitrable, she reiterated that because the 
Arbitrator did not make any findings regarding attorney’s fees in her December 12 
Disposition, they must have been beyond the scope of the Arbitration Agreement and 
therefore ripe for redress in the District Court. 
B. Arguments on the Motion for Sanctions 
 
Attorney Morgan explained that Excel afforded Mr. Carter and his counsel multiple 
opportunities to explain where in the record the Arbitrator found that costs and fees were 
not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or to otherwise withdraw the Motion to 
Lift Stay. She argued that because the motion had not been withdrawn, and because the 
Arbitrator specifically and repeatedly found that an award of Mr. Carter’s reasonable 
attorney’s fees was warranted based on the Agreement, the Motion to Lift Stay amounted to 
an effort to mislead the Court. 
 
Attorney Boykin responded by saying that the sanctions motion was unwarranted, 
and that this dispute should have been resolved solely by litigating the Motion to Lift Stay. 
She argued that there was no support for the claim that Mr. Carter was attempting to mislead 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 14 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 15 
 
 
the Court and no basis upon which the Court should award sanctions because Excel failed to 
demonstrate how it was damaged. She said she maintained a good faith belief that her motion 
was not frivolous and was, in fact, accurate based on the December 12 Disposition. Further, 
nothing was hidden from the Court in her filings. However, she acknowledged that the reason 
attorney’s fees were withheld was because she failed to submit evidence substantiating 
those fees due to her hospitalization. Nevertheless, she concluded that because the 
December 12 Disposition did not specifically state that an award of attorney’s fees and other 
costs was within the scope of the arbitration agreement, she would not presume the 
Arbitrator thought they were. Attorney Boykin also argued that Rule 11 was not designed to 
bar attorneys from being mistaken about certain claims and that any sanction issued 
pursuant to Rule 11 must be limited to the least burdensome sanction capable of deterring 
repetition of the misconduct.    
 
Attorney Morgan rebutted by first saying that Excel had clearly incurred costs and 
expenses in addressing the Motion to Lift Stay, drafting the Sanctions Motion, and attending 
the hearing. Furthermore, Excel’s sanctions motion was wholly appropriate because this was 
more than a mere disagreement over the propriety of proceeding to trial. Rather, there was 
no reasonable basis to support Mr. Carter’s Motion to Lift Stay because the record abounded 
with evidence that undermined Plaintiff’s position, including the December 12 disposition 
itself, which specifically incorporated and reaffirmed the November 8 Final Award. That 
Award included a finding that attorney’s fees were within the scope of the Agreement. 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 15 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 16 
 
 
Attorney Boykin’s interpretation of the December 12 Disposition could only be reasonable if 
one completely ignored the record, including the expressly incorporated November 8 Award.  
 
The Court then offered Attorney Boykin a chance to address the final paragraph of 
her response to Excel’s motion for sanctions, in which she requested that Mr. Carter be 
awarded “his costs and fees incurred in defending against the Motion.” Dkt. No. 49 at 3-4. 
Attorney Boykin denied requesting such sanctions, apparently withdrawing the request. 
DISCUSSION 
 
Whether the case should proceed to trial and whether the sanctions motion should 
be granted turn on the same question: did the Arbitrator find that Mr. “Carter’s costs and 
expenses were not within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.” Dkt. No. 43 at 2. The Court 
finds, based on the arbitration record, that the Arbitrator ruled that Mr. Carter was entitled 
to attorney’s fees and costs because the Arbitrator expressly said as much in at least four of 
her orders. See Dkt. Nos. 44-2 (Interim Award providing that Mr. Carter “is also awarded 
reasonable attorney fees.”), 44-6 (Arbitrator’s Order granting extension of time to file 
documents amount of “attorneys’ fees [Mr. Carter] seeks to recover”), 44-11 (Final Award 
noting Mr. Carter “was also awarded reasonable attorney fees”), 44-14 (affirming that the 
Final Award remains in full force and effect). This necessarily means that the Arbitrator 
found that Mr. Carter’s costs and expenses were within the scope of the Arbitration 
Agreement.7 In each of these Orders, the Arbitrator was unequivocal: Mr. Carter’s costs and 
 
7 Additionally, in this Circuit, “the courts, not the arbitrators, are tasked with interpreting 
agreements in order to determine whether the parties have indeed agreed to arbitrate 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 16 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 17 
 
 
attorney’s fees were within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Any suggestion to the 
contrary cannot be supported by a reasonable reading of the facts. Accordingly, the Court 
will deny the Motion to Lift Stay and will grant the Motion for Sanctions. 
I. 
The Motion to Lift Stay 
  
The Court has determined that the Arbitrator ruled on the propriety of awarding Mr. 
Carter his attorney’s fees. Consequently, the Court finds that the issue of attorney’s fees is 
not ripe to proceed to trial. Moreover, the Order staying this case provided that the stay was 
to last only through arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 18 at 9; see also 9 U.S.C. § 3 (trial 
should be stayed “until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the 
agreement”). “A stay of litigation pending arbitration may be lifted if . . . an award issues 
without a subsequent appeal.” See Thomas H. Oehmke & Joan M. Brovins, 2 Com. Arb. § 53:11 
Mandatory stay of litigation under FAA § 3—Lifting a Stay (emphasis added). When a party 
requests that an arbitration award be vacated or modified pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 or 11, a 
court may stay proceedings related to the enforcement of the award. 9 U.S.C. § 12. In light of 
Mr. Carter’s Amended Motion to Vacate in Part and Modify in Part the Arbitration Award, 
Dkt. No. 55, which is currently pending before the District Judge, the Court finds it 
 
disputes whose arbitrability is contested.” Rite Aid of Pa., Inc. v. United Food & Com. Workers 
Union, Local 1776, 595 F.3d 128, 131 (3d Cir. 2010). When ruling on Excel’s motion to compel 
arbitration, this Court found that all of Mr. Carter’s claims were “undeniably covered by the 
[A]greement.” Dkt. No. 18. By awarding Mr. Carter attorney’s fees, but ultimately 
determining that there was no basis upon which to determine the appropriate award amount 
for fees and costs, the Arbitrator clearly adhered to the Court’s determination that all claims, 
including Mr. Carter’s request for attorney’s fees, were within the scope of the Agreement. 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 17 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 18 
 
 
appropriate to leave the stay in place until such time as the District Judge determines how 
the case shall proceed. Therefore, the Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed to Trial is denied. 
II. 
The Motion for Sanctions 
A. Legal Standard 
 
Rule 11(b) provides: 
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—
whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or 
unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, 
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the 
circumstances: 
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to 
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of 
litigation; 
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by 
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or 
reversing existing law or for establishing new law; 
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically 
so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable 
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and 
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, 
if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of 
information.  
 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). “If, 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.” 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1).8 
 
8 “[A] Magistrate Judge has the authority to decide a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 
when the motion [does] not dispose of any claims or defense[s].” Haim v. Neeman, No. 12-cv-
0351, 2014 WL 12617792, at *1 (D.N.J. June 11, 2014) 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 18 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 19 
 
 
 
“In scrutinizing a filed paper against the[ requirements of Rule 11], courts must apply 
an objective standard of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. 
Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 94 (3d Cir. 1988). Courts should not look at a party’s filing with hindsight, 
but must determine what was reasonable to believe at the time the motion was submitted. 
Id. Rule 11 must not be used as an automatic penalty against an attorney solely because they 
took “‘imaginative legal or factual approaches to applicable law.’” Id. (quoting Gaiardo v. Ethyl 
Corp., 835 F.2d 479, 482 (3d Cir. 1987)).  
 
To determine whether Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate, courts may consider: 
how much time for investigation was available to the signer; whether he had 
to rely on a client for information as to the facts underlying the pleading, 
motion, or other paper; whether the pleading, motion, or other paper was 
based on a plausible view of the law; [ ] whether he depended on forwarding 
counsel or another member of the bar; [and] whether [one] is in a position to 
know or acquire the relevant factual details. 
 
Young v. Smith, 269 F. Supp. 3d 251, 334 (M.D. Pa. 2017) (alterations in original) (citing Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 11 Advisory Committee Notes to 1983 Amendment and CTC Imports & Exports v. 
Nigerian Petroleum Corp., 951 F.2d 573, 578 (3d Cir. 1991)). “Rule 11 Sanctions are 
appropriate, for instance, when the claimant exhibits a deliberate indifference to obvious 
facts.” Id. at 333 (internal quotation marks omitted).  
 
If a court finds that a filing is sanctionable under Rule 11, the sanctions imposed “must 
be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by 
others similarly situated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). “The sanction may include nonmonetary 
directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 19 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 20 
 
 
effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the 
reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.” Id.; see 
also Zuk v. E. Pa. Psychiatric Inst. of the Med. Coll. of Pa., 103 F.3d 294, 300-01 (3d Cir. 1996) 
(“the main purpose of Rule 11 is to deter, not to compensate.”) (quoting 5A Charles Alan 
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1336 (2d ed. Supp. 1996)). 
 
In determining the appropriate sanction, a court can consider:  
[w]hether the improper conduct was willful, or negligent; whether it was part 
of a pattern of activity, or an isolated event; whether it infected the entire 
pleading, or only one particular count or defense; whether the person has 
engaged in similar conduct in other litigation; whether it was intended to 
injure; what effect it had on the litigation process in time or expense; whether 
the responsible person is trained in the law; what amount, given the financial 
resources of the responsible person, is needed to deter that person from 
repetition in the same case; what amount is needed to deter similar activity by 
other litigants: all of these may in a particular case be proper considerations. 
 
Keister v. PPL Corp., 318 F.R.D. 247, 270 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Advisory 
Committee Notes to 1993 Amendment and In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litig., 96 F. 
Supp. 2d 304, 407-08 (D.N.J. 2000)). In sum, the Court “should be guided by equitable 
considerations.” Doering v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 857 F.2d 191, 195 (3d Cir. 
1988).  
 
In some cases, a court may determine that it would be most equitable to sanction only 
the attorney who violated Rule 11 and not the party represented by that attorney. Keister, 
318 F.R.D. at 272. In those cases, a court should consider: 
[whether the attorney] has already been subject to adverse press scrutiny as 
a result of the sanction by the district court; [whether the attorney] has been 
subject to at least one other disciplinary action; [whether] any other evidence 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 20 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 21 
 
 
[ ] would tend to substantiate [the attorney's] claim that he has already been 
deterred sufficiently from filing frivolous actions; the attorney's history of 
filing frivolous actions or alternatively, his or her good reputation; the 
defendant's need for compensation; the degree of frivolousness; whether the 
frivolousness also indicated that a less sophisticated or expensive response 
[by the other party] was required; and the importance of not discouraging 
particular types of litigation which may provide the basis for legislative and 
executive ameliorative action when the courts lack power to act. 
 
Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Doering, 857 F.2d at 195-97). 
B. The Filing of the Motion to Lift Stay Violates Rule 11(b) 
Attorney Boykin’s suggestion that the Arbitrator found that Mr. Carter’s costs and fees 
“were not within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement” is not merely an “imaginative” spin 
on the facts, nor is it a reasonable position to take given the evidence and information 
available to Attorney Boykin when she filed the motion. Rather, the filing contradicts 
numerous findings and orders issued by the Arbitrator that were available to Attorney 
Boykin at the time she filed her motion. In fact, her Motion to Lift Stay contradicts her own 
filings with this Court and with the Arbitrator. See Dkt. No. 42 (Joint Status Report, signed by 
Attorney Boykin, stating that the Arbitrator ordered the parties to file evidence regarding 
the amount of attorney’s fees sought in connection with the arbitration); Dkt. No. 44-5 (Mr. 
Carter’s motion to the Arbitrator acknowledging the Interim Award provided an opportunity 
“to submit documentation supporting the damages and attorney's fees he seeks to recover.”).   
 
Moreover, the Court finds Attorney Boykin’s explanation in support of her motion—
that the motion was based solely on the Arbitrator’s findings in the December 12 
Disposition—vexing and intentionally misleading. First, the Disposition clearly incorporates 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 21 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 22 
 
 
the Final Award. See Dkt. No. 44-14 (“In all other respects my Award dated November 8, 
2024, is reaffirmed and remains in full force and effect.”) (emphasis added). It defies logic 
or explanation to suggest that a document that expressly incorporates another document 
should be read alone.  
Second, even were one to ignore the reference to the November 8 Award, the 
December 12 Disposition does not at all suggest that the Arbitrator found that attorney’s fees 
and costs were outside the scope of the Arbitration Agreement. Attorney Boykin has 
repeatedly failed to explain what aspect of the December 12 Disposition could possibly 
support her interpretation. While she said at oral argument that she was unwilling to 
presume the Arbitrator would say something not explicitly written in her orders, Attorney 
Boykin did exactly that by presuming that the Arbitrator’s silence on the issue of attorney’s 
fees in the Disposition was somehow a specific finding that attorney’s fees were not within 
the scope of the Agreement.  
 
Consequently, the Court finds that Attorney Boykin “exhibit[ed] a deliberate 
indifference to obvious facts,” Smith, 269 F. Supp. 3d at 333, when she filed the Motion to Lift 
the Stay and Proceed to Trial. Moreover, a reasonable attorney in the same position as 
Attorney Boykin at the time she drafted and filed the motion would have known that her 
motion was based on a mischaracterization of the arbitration proceedings. The Court further 
finds that Attorney Boykin’s failure to provide the Court with any background about the 
multiple extensions she was given to file evidence related to fees and costs was an attempt 
to mislead the Court because she consciously withheld important, relevant information. 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 22 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 23 
 
 
Accordingly, the Court finds that Attorney Boykin violated Rule 11(b)(3)9 when she signed 
and filed the Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed to Trial and when she refused to withdraw the 
motion after Excel brought the motion’s shortcomings to her attention. 
C.  Monetary Sanctions, Payable to Excel, Are Appropriate 
 
The sanctionable conduct at issue is significant. The inaccurate characterization of the 
Arbitrator’s findings infected the entirety of the Motion to Lift Stay and all subsequent filings 
and arguments before this Court. Especially concerning to the Court is the fact that Attorney 
Boykin has yet to acknowledge that her filing was misleading, despite having been alerted to 
the issue through Excel’s Rule 11(c)(2) letter, Excel’s response to the Motion to Lift Stay, 
Excel’s Motion for Sanctions, and throughout oral arguments. In fact, she has consistently 
maintained that she did not hide anything from the Court and that her motion was accurate, 
notwithstanding the significant evidence to the contrary. 
 
None of the factors that might caution against sanctions are present here. For 
example, Attorney Boykin, a trained lawyer, made this filing based on her own interpretation 
of the December 12 Disposition, not representations from her client or anyone else. Nor did 
the Motion to Lift Stay require significant investigation. Instead, the motion presents an 
 
9 Excel’s Motion for Sanctions proffered that the Motion to Lift Stay “clearly violates Fed R. 
Civ. P. 11(b)(1)” in addition to Rule 11(b)(3). Although the motion was frivolous and filed 
without basis in fact, the Court was not presented with evidence demonstrating that it was 
filed for an “improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly 
increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1). Accordingly, while the Court agrees 
the filing violates Rule 11(b)(3), it does not find that Attorney Boykin violated Rule 11(b)(1). 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 23 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 24 
 
 
implausible interpretation of several documents that were readily available to Attorney 
Boykin. 
 
Accordingly, the Court must consider what remedy would most effectively deter 
Attorney Boykin from similar conduct in future proceedings. Given Excel’s compliance with 
Rule 11(c)(2) and Attorney Boykin’s unwillingness to admit error—which resulted in a 
significant expenditure of resources by Excel—the Court finds monetary sanctions, payable 
to Excel, appropriate. 
 
In order to effectuate this sanction, the Court will provide Excel until May 30, 2025, 
to file a motion for reasonable attorney’s fees that evidences the amount of hours worked on 
the response to the Motion to Lift Stay, the Motion for Sanctions, and the oral arguments for 
both, in addition to travel costs associated with attending the argument on the motions. That 
motion should also include argument about the appropriate hourly rate for the Court to 
apply. Thereafter, Attorney Boykin will have until June 13, 2025 to file a response.  Excel 
shall not file a reply without leave of Court. 
 
Importantly, the Court finds that it would be inappropriate to sanction Mr. Carter for 
this misconduct, because it does not seem that he was responsible for the filings submitted 
on his behalf in this Court. Moreover, Attorney Boykin is the person who certified the 
veracity of her claims by signing the Motion to Lift Stay and continued to present misleading 
contentions at oral argument. Therefore, none of the costs in responding or adhering to this 
sanction order shall be passed on to Mr. Carter. 
 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 24 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 25 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Attorney Boykin violated Rule 11 by filing a motion that intentionally 
mischaracterized the arbitration proceedings and misled the Court. Therefore, the Court 
now denies that motion and finds a sanction of attorney’s fees, payable to Excel for the time 
expended in responding to the Motion to Lift Stay and the subsequent proceedings and for 
costs expended to travel to attend the hearing on the motions, an appropriate vehicle to meet 
the severity of the violation and deter future misconduct. 
 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:  
1. Plaintiff Melvin Carter’s Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed to Trial on All Issues Outside 
the Arbitration Agreement, Dkt. No. 43, is DENIED. 
2. Defendant Excel Maintenance and Construction VI Inc.’s Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. 
No. 46, is GRANTED. 
3. Plaintiff Melvin Carter’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for 
Sanctions, Dkt. No. 50, is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to February 7, 2025. 
4. Excel shall have up to and including May 30, 2025, to file a Motion for Attorney’s Fees 
proposing an appropriate hourly rate and providing evidence of how many hours 
Excel spent on the response to the Motion to Lift Stay, the Motion for Sanctions, and 
the oral arguments for both, as well as evincing the amount spent on travel costs to 
attend the hearing on the motions.  
 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 25 of 26
Carter v. Excel Construction & Maintenance VI, Inc. 
1:21-cv-00241-WAL-EAH 
Order 
Page 26 
 
 
5. Thereafter, Attorney Boykin will have up to and including June 13, 2025, to file a 
response. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ENTER: 
 
Dated: May 16, 2025  
 
 
 
/s/ Emile A. Henderson III _______ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EMILE A. HENDERSON III 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
 
Case: 1:21-cv-00241-MEM-EAH     Document #: 60     Filed: 05/16/25     Page 26 of 26