Forney v. Township of Cary, North Carolina

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

The record provides clear and convincing evidence that Colantonio engaged in conduct that justifies imposing sanctions under the court's inherent authority. First, Colantonio provided erroneous case citations repeatedly even after being warned. Colantonio has admitted that the citation was erroneous. ... Thus the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Colantonio knowingly submitted a pleading containing fabricated authority and citations on multiple occasions and even after being warned. This conduct constitutes an abuse of the judicial process that is utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice and undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Colantonio's repeated conduct also establishes that he acted in bad faith when he submitted his response. Thus the court may sanction Colantonio under its inherent authority. ... The record in this case shows that a significant sanction is warranted. The submission of fabricated authority imposes substantial costs on the opposing party, the court, and the judicial process. ... After considering Colantonio's conduct and the need to deter similar conduct from him and other litigants, the court orders that he pay the attorney's fees incurred by the Town of Cary as a result of his brief. These fees include, but are not limited to, drafting its reply brief and attending the show cause hearing. ... Further, the Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order and a transcript of the April 16, 2026 hearing (D.E. 18) to the North Carolina State Bar for whatever action it deems appropriate, including consideration of whether disciplinary or disability-related measures are warranted.

Authorities cited in the passage: United States v. Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993) · Six v. Generations Federal Credit Union, 891 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2018) · Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2001) · Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980) · Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) · In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989)