New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Inherent Power — Professional Plaintiff Cannot Show Good Faith by Claiming Reliance on Advice of Counsel, Particularly when Reasserting Claims Repeatedly Rejected by Other Courts

Download PDF

From Stalley v. Mountain States Health Alliance, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8643 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2010):

Plaintiff — along with his partner in litigation, Erin Brockovich — filed numerous lawsuits in federal courts across the country, claiming the Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSP"), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b), was a qui tam statute entitling him to sue, as a private attorney general, healthcare entities for failing to reimburse Medicare for expenses incurred. Without exception, the district courts rebuffed this novel legal claim and held Plaintiff lacked standing to assert it. [Citations omitted.] Undeterred, Plaintiff pursued his claims against five defendants in this Court, which consolidated the actions and dismissed Plaintiff's suit because he lacked Article III standing on which to assert his claims and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ***

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this Court's decision of judgment, holding the MSP could not possibly be construed as a qui tam statute. Stalley v. Methodist Healthcare, 517 F.3d 911, 916 (6th Cir. 2008). Further, the Sixth Circuit determined sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel were appropriate in light of Plaintiff's "utterly frivolous" claims, which he had unsuccessfully advanced in other jurisdictions.... The Sixth Circuit determined Plaintiff and his attorneys pursued the claims "for an improper purpose" and the court could impose sanctions, after holding an evidentiary hearing and giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, under the court's inherent power....

After this Court had dismissed Plaintiff's suits, Defendants filed motions for sanctions.***

The Sixth Circuit held Plaintiff and his law firm's actions constituted bad faith in this case. Stalley, 517 F.3d at 920. As stated by the Sixth Circuit:

Without question, Stalley and his attorneys know that he has no standing to raise the claims he asserts against [Defendants]. Stalley cited no legal authority for his contention MSP is a qui tam statute, and he has failed to persuade a single one of the many other courts in which he has raised this claim. He cannot claim that he is arguing for a good-faith extension of the law because Congress must explicitly create qui tam statutes. . . . Therefore, we can come to only one conclusion: Stalley and his attorneys have continued to pursue these claims against [Defendants] for an improper purpose.

***The Court previously determined the Sixth Circuit's findings regarded the entirety of the litigation and was not limited to the appeal***. Plaintiff and his law firm litigated in bad faith by filing frivolous lawsuits, which had no legal or factual basis. Plaintiff's contention he relied on his counsel is undermined by his actions and the finding by the Sixth Circuit he was acting as a "'self-appointed bounty hunter' whose goal, apparently, is to profit at the expense of [Defendants]." Stalley, 517 F.3d at 919 (internal citation omitted). As [Magistrate] Judge Inman concluded [in an R&R], Plaintiff is a "professional plaintiff' and should be jointly and severally liable for any sanctions imposed. The record and the Sixth Circuit's opinion demonstrate both Plaintiff and his law firm knew the claims they advanced were meritless and were filed for an improper purpose.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice