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 — Due Process Reviewed De Novo — Verbal Warning One Month Before Sanctions Ordered Gave Target Sufficient Opportunity to File a Brief, Be Heard

Download PDF

Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2018 WL 6015923 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2018):

MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiff Nikki Pooshs’s counsel, Appellant Gilbert L. Purcell appeals from the district judge’s March 7, 2016 Order Imposing Sanctions on Plaintiff’s Counsel for Misconduct During Trial (“Sanctions Order”). The sole issue on appeal is whether Appellant’s procedural due process rights were violated. Because a district judge’s imposition of sanctions under its inherent authority is a discretionary decision, we will reverse only where there was an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual determination. We review de novo the question of whether Appellant was afforded due process before the issuance of the Sanctions Order. Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005).

Due process required that Appellant receive the following before the district court imposed a monetary sanction against him: 1) notice of the grounds for the sanction and the potential type of sanctions that may be imposed; and 2) an opportunity to be heard. Id. at 1109-10. The district court repeatedly warned Appellant during the trial that he was violating prior district court orders. Appellant had ample opportunity to stop violating the orders, but chose not to do so. In addition, Appellant was verbally warned during the trial that his continued violations would result in sanctions, specifically, that his continued violations would result in monetary sanctions and a referral to the state bar association.

Although the court did not hold a hearing before it imposed sanctions against Appellant, the court was not required to hold one. See Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that “an opportunity to be heard does not require an oral or evidentiary hearing on the issue” of attorney discipline (citation omitted)). Appellant had ample time to brief the sanctions issue before the district court filed the Sanctions Order, but chose not to do so. Approximately one month elapsed between the district court’s verbal warning about the imposition of sanctions and the filing of the Sanctions Order. Thus, Appellant had a sufficient opportunity to be heard. See id. (“The opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements.” (citation omitted)).

We therefore hold that the district court’s imposition of sanctions against Appellant did not violate his right to due process.

AFFIRMED.

**

 

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 

***

 

The Honorable Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

 

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

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

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: The “Intent to Deprive” Standard in Rule 37(e)(2) Is The Equivalent of Bad Faith in Other Spoliation Contexts — Bad Faith Generally Means Destruction For The Purpose Of Hiding Adverse Evidence — Mere Negligence Is Insufficient Because It Does Not Sustain An Inference of Consciousness of a Weak Case

Sanctions and Attorney-Client Privilege: Sham (Objectively Baseless, Bad Faith) Litigation for Antitrust Purposes Triggers Crime-Fraud Exception — Not All Frivolous Litigation Falls within Crime-Fraud Exception (But Some Sanctionable Behavior Clearly Does)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Retained Expert for Failure to Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Factors (Sixth Circuit) — The Importance of The Evidence Factor Cuts Both Ways: “The More Important The Proof, The Greater The Effect Of Preclusion, But Also The Greater The Harm In Tardy Disclosure”

(1) Bankruptcy Courts Have Only Civil Contempt Powers; (2) All Monetary Contempt Sanctions Must Be Civil — Designed Either to Coerce Compliance Or Compensate a Party for the Contemnor’s Violation, and Not Have As A Primary Purpose to Vindicate the Authority of the Bankruptcy Court Or Punish the Contemnor

Rule 11 and Inherent Power Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction (VLI) Broadened to Bar Any Further Filings in Issuing District Court Due to Violation of Narrower VLI And Failure to Pay Monetary Sanctions

(1) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Issue Against Recidivist Filer of Frivolous Claims for Filing Brief Consisting Mostly of Unsubstantiated Accusations; (2) Vexatious Litigant Injunction to Issue If Any Monetary Penalty Not Paid Promptly

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