Saninocencio v. Pierce & Mandell, P.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8100 (1st Cir. Mar. 31, 2025) (unpublished):

JUDGMENT

Gary Dolan ("Dolan"), an attorney, appeals from the district court's entry of a January 14, 2022 order on sanctions that, inter alia, precludes him from making any further filings in the district court arising out of the state court litigation concerning Dolan's client Nellie Saninocencio without prior court permission and requires him personally to pay attorneys' fees and costs to the appellee law firms. Our review is for abuse of discretion. See Silva v. Witschen, 19 F.3d 725, 727 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing, inter alia, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990)). We overlook appellees' failure to comply with Rule 11's procedural requirements, which specified, inter alia, that Dolan be given 21 days after service to withdraw his amended complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), as it does not appear that affording him only 15 days caused him prejudice. [*2]  We will similarly overlook Dolan's failure to raise his financial situation until the question of a bond arose in the district court because appellees did not argue that Dolan waived the issue. After careful review of the district court record and the arguments presented by the parties, we affirm the award of Rule 11 sanctions as Dolan has not sustained his "formidable" burden of establishing that the district court abused its discretion. See Silva, 19 F.3d at 727 (citing, inter alia, Cooter, 496 U.S. at 405 (1990); Navarro-Ayala v. Nunez, 968 F.2d 1421, 1425 (1st Cir. 1992)).

However, Rule 11 monetary sanctions must be reasonable. Navarro-Ayala, 968 F.2d at 1425. "A sanction imposed under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11] must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). Under all of the circumstances of this case, including Dolan's representations concerning his financial situation, we hold that the amount of the sanction was excessive, as it would impose an undue burden on Dolan who has reported driving a truck as his only source of income during the course of this litigation.

Appellant has not challenged the district court's order enjoining him from making further filings in the district court without prior court permission so any challenge to that aspect of the order is waived. We reverse only [*3]  that part of the order relating to the amount of sanctions, reducing the amount to $5,000.00.

The appellees' motion for sanctions on appeal is DENIED.