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

Vexatious Litigant: 3 Suits for Same Grievance, Alone, Enough — Finding Claims Colorable for In Forma Pauperis Status Doesn’t Bar Later Sanctions — Appeals: Denial of Rule 59 Motion Unappealable, Court Treats Notice as Appeal of Underlying Order

Download PDF

Mitchell v. Taylor, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9651 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2018) (unpublished):

Dwight Mitchell, a pro se litigant, appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part the motion of Guardian Home Care Holdings, Inc. ("Guardian Home Care") for an award of attorney's fees and sanctions. This case has been referred to a panel of the court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

In 2007, Mitchell owned and operated Sun Valley Home for the Aged ("Sun Valley"), a licensed residential home for [*2]  the elderly in Hartsville, Tennessee. On August 15, 2007, the Tennessee Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities suspended Mitchell's license to maintain Sun Valley. In 2015, Mitchell filed a complaint and a first amended complaint, on behalf of himself and Sun Valley, against Wilson Taylor, Guardian Home Care, Mary Holder, the City of Hartsville, Tommy Thompson, Jr., and the Trousdale County Sheriff's Department. Mitchell alleged that, in the course of their involvement in the 2007 closure of Sun Valley, the defendants violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mitchell also asserted a state-law claim against Taylor for fraudulent concealment.

The district court dismissed Mitchell's claims on behalf of Sun Valley without prejudice for lack of standing. The defendants thereafter filed motions to dismiss Mitchell's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The magistrate judge entered a report recommending that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted. Mitchell filed objections to the report and recommendation and moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court adopted the report and recommendation after conducting a de novo [*3]  review thereof, dismissed Mitchell's federal claims with prejudice, dismissed his state-law claim without prejudice, and denied as futile his motion for leave to amend. Mitchell's appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing his action is currently pending in Case No. 16-6335.

Guardian Home Care later filed a motion for attorney's fees and sanctions. The district court granted the motion insofar as it requested that Mitchell be deemed a vexatious litigant in relation to the 2007 closure of Sun Valley but denied the motion insofar as it requested attorney's fees or other sanctions. As to the sanction imposed, the district court explained that the present action is Mitchell's third lawsuit against Guardian Home Care arising from the 2007 closure of Sun Valley and "[i]t is unfair to require Guardian Home Care to spend the time, money and effort to defend stale claims." Accordingly, the district court enjoined Mitchell from filing further suits against Guardian Home Care relating to the 2007 closure of Sun Valley without obtaining leave of the district court. Mitchell filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the district court's order, which the district court denied. Mitchell then [*4]  filed a notice of appeal from the district court's order denying Rule 59(e) relief.

In this appeal, Mitchell argues that the district court erred in imposing sanctions.

Ordinarily, denials of Rule 59 motions are not appealable as such, and appellate courts should treat a notice of appeal that cites only an order disposing of a Rule 59 motion as an appeal of the underlying [order]." A Renewed Mind v. Weatherby, 675 F. App'x 572, 574 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Crown Serv. Plaza Partners v. City of Rochester Hills, Nos. 98-1581/98-1666, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 9935, 2000 WL 658029, at *4 (6th Cir. May 8, 2000)). We review for abuse of discretion the district court's order deeming Mitchell a vexatious litigant subject to pre-filing restrictions. See First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins., 307 F.3d 501, 516 (6th Cir. 2002); Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998). A district court has "inherent authority" to impose sanctions based on a litigant's bad faith, contemptuous conduct, and conduct that "abuses the judicial process." First Bank of Marietta, 307 F.3d at 516 (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991)). An available sanction is "outright dismissal of a lawsuit." Chambers, 501 U.S. at 45. A district court also has inherent authority to issue an injunctive order to prevent prolific litigants from filing harassing and vexatious pleadings. See Feathers, 141 F.3d at 269; Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987).

As the district court explained, the present action is Mitchell's third lawsuit against Guardian Home Care arising from the 2007 closure of Sun Valley. Mitchell was warned, in his prior federal lawsuit against Guardian Home [*5]  Care, "that any further attempts to relitigate these same issues may result in sanctions." Under these circumstances, the district court was within its discretion to deem Mitchell a vexatious litigant. See Feathers, 141 F.3d at 269; Filipas, 835 F.2d at 1146.

Mitchell's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. He first contends that Guardian Home Care failed to properly request sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not displace a district court's inherent authority to impose sanctions. See Chambers, 501 U.S. at 42-43. Mitchell also argues that the district court's sanctions order was inconsistent with its order granting him leave to proceed in forma pauperis below. But the order granting Mitchell pauper status in the district court found that he stated colorable claims "for purpose of initial the review only." That preliminary determination did not foreclose the district court's later conclusion as to sanctions. Finally, Mitchell attempts to distinguish the facts of his case from those at issue in Feathers. But he does not dispute that the present action is his third lawsuit against Guardian Home Care arising from the 2007 closure of Sun Valley. That fact alone provides sufficient support for the district court's decision. See Feathers, 141 F.3d at 269.

Because [*6]  the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, we AFFIRM the district court's order.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(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

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)

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