OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 38, 39]

JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

In this student-loan dispute, Plaintiff Julie Anne Chinnock made numerous factual allegations in her verified complaint—under oath—to support personal jurisdiction.1 The Navient Defendants2 submitted documentary evidence rebutting those allegations.3 This evidentiary conflict required the Court to hold a personal jurisdiction hearing.4

At that hearing, in an inexplicable about-face, Chinnock recanted her prior allegations and testified to the opposite.5 Chinnock's new position aligned with the Navient Defendants' prior submission. Had Chinnock not lied in her verified complaint, the Court would not have been required to hold—and the Navient Defendants to attend— the personal jurisdiction hearing.

Thus, in its April 22, 2019 Opinion, the Court granted the Navient Defendants' sanctions motion, pending evidence detailing their expenses associated with the hearing.6

The Navient Defendants now submit records detailing $6,485.09 in travel expenses and attorneys' fees relating to the personal jurisdiction hearing.7 Chinnock's bad faith bait and switch directly caused these expenditures.8 Chinnock asks the Court to declare the fees excessive. They are not.

Plaintiff Chinnock asks the Court to reconsider its decision to impose sanctions.9 Yet, Chinnock does not even acknowledge, much less explain, the stark inconsistencies between her verified complaint and her hearing testimony. Instead, after an otherworldly account of the litigation,10 she argues that the Court is really sanctioning her for filing recusal motions earlier in the litigation.11 Not so.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and DENIES Plaintiff's motion to declare the fees excessive. Further, for the foregoing reasons, and those described in its April 22, 2019 Opinion, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the Navient Defendants $6,485.09.

IT IS SO ORDERED.