A Refreshing Pox-on-Both-Your-Houses Approach to Sanctions (Seventh Circuit) — Good Quote

From Moore v. Vital Prods., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (7th Cir. May 25,, 2011):

Vital has come, shotgun in tow, seeking sanctions. See United States v. Levy, 741 F.2d 915, 924 (7th Cir. 1984) (noting that "the shotgun inclusion of issues . . . runs the risk of obscuring the significant issues by dilution"). In the district court, Vital moved for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the first three subparts of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The district court denied Vital's motion. Undeterred, Vital seeks sanctions from this court under § 1927, 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. Moreover, Vital appeals the district court's decision, claiming it abused its discretion by not issuing sanctions. At no point does Vital bother to articulate the respective standards for issuing sanctions on these various bases.

Because Moore's appeal was partially successful, we need not thoroughly analyze most of Vital's sanction arguments. We do point out that Vital seeks sanctions from Moore and his counsel for causing unnecessary delay and for unreasonably multiplying the proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1912, 1927. These requests seem to be based on Vital's claim that Moore and his counsel misrepresented the factual record. After reading the parties' briefs and scouring the record, we find that each side took liberties with the record throughout its brief. Similarly, each side has incorrectly stated, interpreted, or applied the relevant law at some point in its brief. Put simply, neither side can claim the high ground. Neither side, however, has misconstrued the record or misstated the law to a degree that compels us to issue sanctions.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Archives