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

Sanctions Reversed Where Inference of Bad Faith Drawn in Part from Conduct of Others — “[O]nly Conduct Explicitly Referred to in the Instrument Providing Notice Is Sanctionable” —

Download PDF

Cameron Int’l Trading Co. v. Hawk Importers, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22294 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2012):

Movants J. Curtis Edmondson and Scott D. Frendel (collectively "movants"), defendants' counsel in this matter, appeal from a January 18, 2011, memorandum and order finding that they violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and are jointly and severally liable in the amount of $4,900. ***

A "bad faith" standard applies to Rule 11 sanctions where, as here, the court initiates sanctions long after the sanctioned lawyer has the opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission. In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, 323 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2003). The district court inferred bad faith on the part of Edmondson and Frendel from (1) the purported frivolity of the arguments movants made in defendants' motion to dismiss filed March 1, 2010, and (2) "Defendants' general course of conduct." Included in the "course of conduct" that the district court considered were a number of actions taken by defendants and their prior counsel before movants were retained. For instance, the district court noted that defendants (1) ignored "Plaintiffs' initial notice of breach" and "Plaintiffs' request to re-open this case"; (2) failed to appear at the initial status conference, which led to the Court's first Order to Show Cause; and (3) repeatedly sought adjournments of the Show Cause hearing before the magistrate judge, delaying the hearing for several months. See Cameron Int'l Trading Co. v. Hawk Imps., Inc., No. 03-CV-02496, 2011 WL 167596, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan 18, 2011). The district court's inference of bad faith on the part of movants was clearly erroneous to the extent that it was drawn from behavior in which movants were uninvolved.

This faulty inference might not have been drawn had the district court given movants notice of "the specific conduct or omission for which the sanctions are being considered so that [they could] prepare a defense." Star Mark Mgmt., Inc. v. Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd., 682 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 194 F.3d 323, 334 (2d Cir. 1999)). "[O]nly conduct explicitly referred to in the instrument providing notice is sanctionable." Id. (quoting Schlaifer Nance & Co., 194 F.3d at 334). Here, the district court ordered defendants and movants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for filing "a totally nonsensical, legally illogical motion to dismiss." Cameron Int'l Trading Co., Inc. v. Hawk Imps., Inc., No. 03-CV-02496, 2010 WL 4568980, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010). The district court did not refer to the conduct preceding that filing, including but not limited to the conduct engaged in by individuals other than movants. Consequently, that conduct is not sanctionable.

The district court's order of sanctions was based on its "[c]onsider[ation of] Defendants' conduct in its entirety." Cameron Int'l Trading Co., 2011 WL 167596, at *4. Because at least a portion of that conduct was not sanctionable, did not give rise to a valid inference of bad faith, or both, we VACATE the Rule 11 sanctions. We do not reach movants' contention that, given the size of the sanction imposed, movants were entitled to additional procedural protections; the argument is rendered moot by this order. Nor do we reach movants' contention that the arguments in the motion to dismiss were not frivolous; it is unclear at this stage if the district court would consider any such frivolity, standing alone, to be sufficient ground for an inference of bad faith.

Footnote 1 We note, however, that the question of law appears to us to be much closer than the district court considered it to be. The district court had dismissed the case with prejudice without explicitly retaining jurisdiction; the motion to dismiss might be characterized as putting forth a "reasonable argument to extend . . . the law [expressed in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994),] as it stands." Fishoff v. Coty Inc., 634 F.3d 647, 654 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Morley v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 66 F.3d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1995)).

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