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 Sanctions: Bad Faith Required in 5th Circuit — Raising Patently Frivolous Legal Argument and Threatening Further Meritless Litigation = Bad Faith — Pro Se Litigant — Vexatious Litigant Injunction Must Be Tailored

Download PDF

Terra Partners v. Rabo Agrifinance, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26291 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012):

On September 20, 2012, Steve Veigel sought to file a pro se amicus brief in support of Terra Partners. Steve Veigel has an obvious interest in this case. He is an authorized managing agent for Terra Partners, is a corporate officer for all four of the corporate partners that form Terra Partners, owns all shares in one of the corporate partners, and half of the shares in another. In his amicus brief, Steve Veigel asserts that prior decisions of this court "are legal nullities that are void ab initio." We have previously rejected his argument. See Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Veigel Farm Partners, 328 F. App'x 942, 943 (5th Cir. May 15, 2009). The brief thus is frivolous. ***

Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. and Ag Acceptance Corporation moved for sanctions against both Steve Veigel and Terra Partners. Although we do not impose monetary sanctions against Terra Partners, we find that Steve Veigel acted in bad faith and impose sanctions. See Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 1986) ("We may impose sanctions on appeal . . . if necessary.").

Federal courts have an inherent power "to sanction a party or attorney when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of their dockets." Scaife v. Associated Air Ctr. Inc., 100 F.3d 406, 411 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991) ("A primary aspect of that discretion is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process."). The threshold for using our inherent powers is high, and we "must make a specific finding that the sanctioned party acted in 'bad faith,'" before imposing sanctions. Maguire Oil Co. v. City of Houston, 143 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Matta v. May, 118 F.3d 410, 413 (5th Cir. 1997)) (emphasis omitted). Steve Veigel's void ab initio argument was affirmatively rejected by this court, and his brief threatens future litigation premised on the same argument. See Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 2002) ("[F]ederal courts also have the inherent power to impose sanctions against vexatious litigants."). Raising a patently frivolous legal argument and threatening continued meritless litigation is the definition of bad faith. Steve Veigel, therefore, is sanctioned in the amount of $3,000. ***

In order to prevent Steve Veigel from continuing to raise the frivolous void ab initio argument, Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. and Ag Acceptance Corporation requested an injunction to prevent the filing of future litigation collaterally attacking this court's judgments.

Footnote 3. Steve Veigel has apparently already raised the argument again in an October 9, 2012 letter submitted to a New Mexico state court, claiming that the case of Rabo Agrifinance v. Terra XXI, 257 F. App'x 732 (5th Cir. Dec. 7, 2007), was a legal nullity, void ab initio.

We agree that an injunction is appropriate in this instance.

As previously stated, we have the inherent power to impose sanctions, including an injunction, against litigants who use the legal system to harass their opponents through vexatious litigation. See Newby, 302 F.3d at 302; see also Farguson, 808 F.2d at 359 ("That his filings are pro se offers . . . no impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court dockets."). We recognize, however, that "injunction[s] against future filings must be tailored to protect the courts and innocent parties, while preserving the legitimate rights of litigants." Farguson, 808 F.2d at 360.

In this case, Steve Veigel stated that he intends to raise the same void ab initio argument in future Rule 60(b) motions; petitions for writs of mandamus in state or federal court; motions to reopen bankruptcy cases for consideration of motions for contempt; bills of review in state court; and other collateral attacks on the prior judgments of this court. His position is not supported in existing law and is not a reasonable argument to extend or modify the law, given that this court has already ruled on his argument. The future litigation he threatens would be repetitive, vexatious, previously resolved, and meritless. A narrowly-tailored injunction is an appropriate sanction to protect this court's judgments and to prevent the continued filing of vexatious litigation.

It is therefore ORDERED:

No pleading, lawsuit, or other document in any federal court shall be filed by, or on behalf of, Steve Veigel, his affiliates or related entities, including Terra Partners, without first presenting the filing to the district court below to determine whether the issues contained in the filing have been previously decided. Furthermore, it is ORDERED that said Steve Veigel shall pay into the registry of this court the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) by and no later than January 4, 2013.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

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