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

Order Stating that Counsel’s Conduct Warranted Rule 11 Sanctions but Expressly Declining to Impose Any Is Not Appealable

Download PDF

Omega Claims Solutions, Inc. v. N’Site Solutions, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23282 (5th Cir. Nov. 18, 2011):

At the end of that order [confirming an arbitration award], the district court stated about Omega's counsel, Scott Rothenberg:

As a final matter, and for the reasons discussed above, Omega has forced N'Site to pursue a costly and time-consuming course to enforce the arbitration award made on December 19, 2008. The Court believes that Omega's counsel, Scott Rothenberg, spearheaded a campaign of misinformation and delay in a Quixotic quest to vacate an arbitration award that was, as this Court has found, decided thoughtfully, fairly, and well within the confines of the AAA Rules. Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Rothenberg's actions in this case are sufficient to warrant the sua sponte imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. However, in light of the Court's decision to award costs and attorneys' fees to [N'Site] for the reasons stated above, the Court will exercise its discretion not to order any sanctions at this time for Omega's frivolous claims.

Omega Claims Solutions, Inc. v. N'Site Solutions, Inc., No. 4:09-CV-1102, slip op. at 12 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2009). Rothenberg did not [immediately] appeal that order. On March 29, 2011, N'Site timely filed its notice of appeal of two later orders by the district court. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(3), Rothenberg filed his notice of appeal, appealing the December 17, 2009 order. N'Site later voluntarily dismissed its appeal, leaving only Rothenberg's appeal of the December 17, 2009 order pending.

N'Site argues that the December 17, 2009 order is not appealable because, it contends, the district court issued no sanction. Although not stylized as such in its brief, what N'Site is arguing is that Rothenberg lacks standing because Rothenberg has suffered no injury-in-fact. See K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 122 (5th Cir. 2010). Although in Walker v. City of Mesquite, Tex., 129 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 1997), we held that damage to an attorney's professional reputation because of a sanction is sufficient to confer standing, see id. at 832-33, here, there was no sanction. The district court expressly stated it was "exercis[ing] its discretion not to order any sanctions at this time." Omega Claims, No. 4:09-CV-1102, slip op. at 12. The mere conclusion that Rothenberg's actions were "sufficient to warrant the sua sponte imposition of Rule 11 sanctions," id., is neither sufficiently concrete and particularized nor actual and imminent to confer standing.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(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

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

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