florida various federal courts i've never had an experience like this this is kind of the litigation analog to the bad dream we all had in college or law school that we wake up the morning of a final and realize we haven't attended any classes the entire semester this is kind of a litigation analogue get to that it's kind of a surreal experience it's just not in my range of experience at all and you know where to start with all these issues and probably the best way to store it is a question the judge humphrey asked the presiding judge ask me during the back he said don't you think  them at one hundred twenty four he said and he said oh isn't that excessive and i responded by saying well in all honesty i haven't counted them but i urge you to consider the fact that that number whatever it is is over a four or five year period it averages out to what two or three promotes and then after the oral argument i went back and i said well wait a minute is that even a fair question for the following reason i'm being sanctioned or i was saying shouldn't from what my conduct allegedly was during the during the trial during the merits phase or during the trial itself or during the proceedings leading up to the merits resolution if you exclude all of the sanctions filings and all the filings relating to appeals and if you also exclude all the filings relating to the trustees frivolous assertion that a twenty eight day notice was ok under the thirty day rule how many filings are left which dealt with the bankruptcy court or responses that were precipitated by the motions that you filed in the bab twenty three filings in the bab you have seven appeals to either the seven appeals during the course of this not counting the appeals to the six circuit it's just frankly hard to understand how how you could stand there and not think somebody might think this was you might think you are an aggressive litigator and that's fine but but there is a lie and it's hard to know where that line is but i would suggest to you this law this conduct seems so far over that  basically speaking in terms of the merits there was one series of appeals now i had to appeal at different times because there were different appealable orders if i didn't exercise my right to appeal at a given time for a specific order i would have been way i woulda waved it i would have been on a walk so i mean to say that there were seven appeals but there was one series basically in the district court on the merits and i know it came up one peel on the new claim and one appeal on the the basic claim but number one i'm not being sanctioned here for my conduct during the appeals indeed the only argument the only motion that was ever made that i did something frivolous in connection with an appeal was denied by judge one judge one ruled that all right mike you know it may have been improper in him but she expressed they ruled yes q this specific question you don't think there's some suggestion here that seeking to have the bankruptcy judge recruit yourself seven separate times might be a little excessive well the number one t i don't know where that figure i mean there were real arguments but basically there were basically there were three there were three were queues all focuses there might have been rio arguments there might have been replies but there was a  request right after it is look at their records six of them are in writing one of them is orally ok you know you know something if with all due respect if you think that those  were frivolous and vexatious sanction me for that sanction me for that and then we will do the math in terms of how much time was involved in that i respectfully submit that a lot of those that those motions were not frivolous for example the the motion i made to the bankruptcy judge in the morning of the sanctions trial that was based upon her statement one week earlier at the discovery hearing where she saw a spontaneous opened up i didn't provoke this at all and she accused me on the record of causing all the delays with the twists and turns in the case and i responded and i said with all due respect your honor that's just not true you flip flop back and forth four times stopping isn't starting isn't stopping us and starting us and i said how could that possibly not cause delay there was a very clear personal dispute between me and the bankruptcy judge on the record as to who caused the most delay you know how could a judge not be recused there if she's going to decide that issue in which she has a vested interest in which she's a disputant in her two decisions nine times the bankruptcy judge decided that she wasn't responsible for the delay that only i was how was that not a self interested decision that happens all the time well it happens all the time that a judge that there might be delays but not that  judge decides whether he or she is responsible for the delay yes judge is right did the judge have the discretion to order us to flip flop back and forth four times no doubt about it i never disputed the judge's authority to structure the case in a reason and what the judge perceived to be a reasonable way but that's not the issue the issue is once the judge did that and that clearly cause some delay is it fair is it compliance with due process for the judge then to say ok i will decide whether i have a judge cause the delay happens in speedy trial issues all the quest to decide whether the delays are attributable to the prosecution the defendant or the court well but here there was a personal dispute i mean the judge i mean the judge might have to decide whether or not there was a way but that doesn't mean that the judge was involved in a personal dispute there there was very clearly i mean  read the record it was very clearly a personal dispute between me and the judge there's no other way to reasonably interpret this unfortunately it happened this was not a pleasant experience for me i didn't enjoy going through the whole sanctions process and frankly with all due respect to your honor's i don't enjoy being here arguing this right now but it was very clearly a personal dispute in addition to that the other recusal issues i mean you seem to believe that any time there's a disagreement between a judge over a legal proposition therefore it's become personal no and there's that simply is not the way it works no that's that's not what i'm saying i mean i have to spew with judges all the time i mean that's the nature of the process that there is in me and i've been criticizing is that i've been criticized by judges you know frequently i've had a forty plus your career you know you don't go through that as a litigator without having conflicts with judges that doesn't mean that the judge should be disqualified but this is something different here this was a personally i've never confronted a situation like this where the judge has told me mr grossman you're the one responsible for the way i respond and i say no judge you or and there's a reasonable basis for that and then in a sanctions proceeding have the judge decide whether she is responsible or i am i respectfully submit that's not due process clearly the judge had a vested interest in deciding that issue in her own favor she's a personal dispute and that's in addition to the other matters of recusal grossman with all due respect that argument is simply silly when you move on to something sure less the panel has questions about that one fine i will fairness what is this case all about fairness and it ties into legal propositions everywhere this is for  claim me judge sutton yeah he wrote a panel decision basically saying claim denied on doing over review but there are reasonable bases on the one page this is a one page contract and the contract said money is in the one million dollars is invested in darlington ok clearly it went to the corporation and after two years it's going to be return gordons the word return give back send back thank you does rise to a reasonable non frivolous basis by use of the word return by use of the word invested in the darlington corp it's a very non frivolous basis that yeah ok darlington is liable the form of the signature is not controlling under the law that's one of the first things i did research on when i was confronted or solicited by the gordons to handle this case i'm going to turn in new york and florida i was not familiar with ohio law i went to the law library to check out ohio law to make sure that ohio law like new york and florida law focused on contracts which it did and there was a very clear reasonable non frivolous argument that the corporation is liable here look at judge sutton's decision when he wrote it four years ago he had to navigate through the intricacies of the contract to decide yeah ok he ruled to go with it with it has to be a frivolous claim in order to sanction me for a frivolous claim yes doesn't have to be frivolous to sanction you for vexatious proceedings which is exactly what happened here well it's your right as a proposition of law you're right as a proposition of law but if you look to the merits of it if you look to my filings during the merits phase of the case they're not that given the fact that this is a two million dollar case i mean i think the panel can take judicial notice that when you review substantial civil cases where there's a lot of money at stake and this was over two million dollars very frequently you get docket entries that are three four or five hundred items long there might be fewer but in the context of a two million dollars dispute this this was not overall  take issue fine you might take issue with some appeals if you think this appeal was frivolous and i respectfully submit it's not but if you think this appeal is frivolous then sanction me for this appeal you know it's fascinating that you say well this is a complicated case is two million dollars this is a lot of money wouldn't be unusual to have three four five hundred documentaries might be true you know many documentaries there were in the bankruptcy court in this case what stage you're talking about your honor i mean we have a bankruptcy docket starts at the beginning ends at the end of the it's the totality i think it went to over a thousand did it went through overthe loven hundred seventy nine i just think it's interesting that you think well our i'm louise maser i represent the liquidation trustee the happily in this case i don't want to take time to argue the merits of the gordons claim that's already been argued in the summary what i'd like to do is to address my comments to the sanction issues specifically and notwithstanding the peripheral issues that mr grossman raises in my view there are three main ones the first issue is whether or not a bankruptcy court has the right to control the proceedings in her court that's a general legal issue and two specific legal issues in this case number one where the bankruptcy judge properly determined that mr grossman had engaged in sanctionable conduct and secondly whether or not the bankruptcy judge properly determine the amount of sanctions your honors i submit based upon the reasons set forth in the record as we've outlined in our brief that the bankruptcy court properly awarded sanctions to the trustee because of the repetitive fixation in bad faith conduct in that that the decision should be affirmed in all respects i'd like to take a little time just to make sure to explain the procedural history the issue of sanctions came up literally years ago in two thousand and nine the trustee was invited to move for sanctions pursuant to rule bankruptcy rule nine zero one one which did occur mr grossman did have the opportunity to fully briefed that issue the liquidation supplement at the request for sanctions pursuant to the court's inherent power he again had the opportunity to brief the issue of sanctions under the inherent power subsequently in january of tw the bankruptcy judge issued an order asking mr grossman to show cause why he should not also be sanctioned pursuant to section nine hundred twenty seven i bring this up to lay the groundwork for the more recent renewed sanction motion because i think it's important for me to stress to this panel that those sanctions considerations were stayed and held in a benz by the bankruptcy judge because of all these appeals that stemmed from the gordon's underlying claim they had never been ruled on and the bankruptcy court made it quite clear that she intended to revisit all the sanction motions at a later point in time when the gordon's claim had been finalized through the appellate process so that she could have a more complete picture of the circumstances there are no sanctions at this point for any of you correct that is correct your honor no sanctions at all the bankruptcy courts opinion first and second regarding sanctions i think it's very clear and i don't think that it's fair for mr grossman here today to say that the sanction award was space solely on a determination that the gordons claim once without basis that is not the only basis and i urge you please to read for yourselves those decisions and i would like to quote a little bit from them because if you are you saying that there was a determination that it was frivolous i think that the court made clear that mr grossman on behalf of the gordons did not produce evidence to establish that they were in fact legitimate claim port holders and that's the reason why about thirty days after he entered an appearance he had filed a motion to amend it's pretty simple question was there a finding that it was frivolous that the claim itself was frivolous yes i believe so not one of the bases of the sanctions that was one of the basis for the sanctions yes your honor and in addition the basis was the repetitive frivolous filings that the court expressly found was in bad fa for fixations reasons and specifically gear to try to force a settlement the bankruptcy court also stated that in her view special scrutiny should be given in a bankruptcy context where the pool of funds available for distribution to the creditors was reduced because of the conduct of mr grossman and he well knew that in this case the sanctions are particularly warranted because the money isn't going to the liquidation trustee the money is going to the legitimate creditors of the royal manor bankruptcy and now liquidation trust so i want to make clear that in both the first opinion of march and the second opinion the bankruptcy court made clear that not merely was mr grossman advancing a claim that he knew was frivolous but also that his repetitive conduct showed bad faith and an intent to vexatiously multiply the proceedings the first broad issue is whether or not a bankruptcy judge has the authority to control what happens in her court and i think answer to that question is resoundingly yes for two reasons number one a bankruptcy judge has the power to impose sanctions under the inherent authority pursuant to eleven u s c one o five that's simply  requires a finding of bad faith such that it's obvious that a person is the laying the proceedings such as what happened here and just rocking the proceedings which is again exactly what happened here and  did find bad faith on the part of mr grossman the second component of judge stone i'm so finding was that the conduct was also sanctionable pursuant to section nine hundred twenty seven her finding in that regard stem from the fact that she felt that mr grossman had abused the litigation process section nine hundred twenty seven permits a court to sanctions when that occurs in the purpose of that is to detour similar pat practices and also to punish the offender and judge based on i'm also referenced that was a deployed to a bankruptcy court your honor the circuits are split on that currently and i understand that gets to the stern issue the in re salt decision did a good job explaining and that was pretty stern did a good job explaining the split authority on that issue this court before stern admittedly in the maloof decision upheld imposition of stand sanctions by bankruptcy court pursuant to nine hundred twenty seven it is my view that if this court looks at that issue beyond the inherent authority issue that it should follow prior precedent and what most circuit courts are doing now and that is to determine that bankruptcy courts do have the authority notwithstanding stern to impose sanctions under section nine hundred twenty seven i will say however that apart from that statutory authority in this case the court did also find that sanctions were properly awarded under its and here and authority because i do think that there's overwhelming evidence of bad faith in the way that mr grossman pursued the gordon in this litigation honour's have already noted some of the sanctionable conduct of mr grossman and i think it's disingenuous for him to come before this court and try to claim that there was merely twenty five filings because i did take time last evening to actually go through and try to note some of the filings that were made even after the court even after the renewed sanction motions were filed so let's talk about that this brings us to the timeframe of december of two thousand and fourteen what did mr grossman do he first attempted to again for the fourth time depose the trustees attorneys he propounded written discovery to the trustees attorneys in in that written discovery literally asked the trustees attorney to produce documents that he already had in his possession the day of the sanction hearing he moved to with draw the reference he made it verbal request to recuse i think the pattern of his conduct is evidenced by the way he reacted to the judge's denial of the motion to withdraw the reference what did he do as was his i'm sorry to withdraw the reference when judge pearson denied that motion to withdraw the reference he immediately filed a motion for reconsideration when judge pearson denied that motion for reconsideration what did he do three days later he filed another motion to recuse in the bankruptcy he filed for briefs challenging a settlement that the trustee reached with her to gordon on the separate issue of whether she should be sanctioned let's put this into context this is mr gross an's formal client if you will although the claim was technically in the name of her children the original claim was actually filed by gertrude gordon s p l way for her children so even though he didn't have standing mr grossman at that point was trying to prevent gertrude herself from entering into a settlement and let me tell you one thing that's readily apparent from the record her every pleading that he files even though she's represented by another attorney now think about that what possible reason can there be to me that screams the bad faith conduct that we have here and it is pervasive the personal attacks on the judge in a little far field here become so let's get back to what happened at the bankruptcy court thank you your honor getting back to the issues and again this is just after the renewed sanction motion was filed we had a motion to dismiss a credit motion after the initial opinion was rendered and of course there was an appeal from that that was dismissed as well for lack of final order  after the final sanction order was issued the trustee attempted to do two things we want to collect the judgment so we filed discovery asking mr grossman to give us information regarding his assets and to appear for debtors examination and also move the bankruptcy court to permit us to obtain special counsel in two states where he practices and resides being new york and florida we have a court from the an order from the bankruptcy court directing mr grossman to respond to the discovery and to appear for a debtor's of examination he does not again a pattern of bad faith conduct it is simply impermissible for an attorney be they licensed in this state or another or appearing pro hoc be che to so regularly and repetitive disregard orders of a court and engage in practices that abuse the little litigation process and that's exactly what happened here i want to also stress to the judges point regarding the issue of the validity of the claim that there were constant changes in the legal theories i've already alluded to the amended claim that claim was to a dues parole evidence in the form of gertrude gordon's testimony that she disagreed with the agreement itself in the four corners of what was stated on the agreement but also after the k ones were discovered by the trustee and brought to the attention of mr gordon he filed yet another request for a new claim filing based upon claims of unjust enrichment and rescission again these are legal grasping at straws to try to convert what was never a valid claim into something that was and why what motive the motive is clear mr grossman would be paid if and only if he was successful and establishing a valid claim then he would receive forty percent of whatever distribution the borden's what that is the motive for the activity unfortunately and i think the record is very clear your honour's thank you for your time for your read the reasons i've set forth in the briefs and those i've mentioned today i urge this panel to please affirm in its entirety the decision of the bankruptcy court so that future similar conduct can be to teared in so that the pool of funds available for distributions to the creditors in this was the entirety of my filings fixations i don't think so she said quote often frivolous findings she won't everything together all the legitimate and the non literate and what she found non legitimate never particular rising what was not legit what she felt the being on the jenna bit you really don't think you can glean that from appendix a which is thirty seven pages of what you did in this case she never sa what she found in that appendix to be frivolous she merely listed my arguments in this mr grossman argued a b c a lot of times her her summaries were inaccurate were they omitted pertinent arguments that i had but where ever in any of her filings did she say mr grossman engaged in frivolous conduct because he filed this a b c d it's not there in addition to that there's no not true the only notice that i had over what was being tried was the renewed motion only look at docket in tray nine fifty four the all that's the notice of motion of sanctions that's the said he come pounded his absence of compelling arguments with needless multiplication a repetition of specious arguments if an opportunity presented itself paren or could be fabricated closed period to file a pleading grossman took it whether he had something new to say or not now that combined with appendix a you seem to be arguing is insufficient because it was a duty to go through each and every pleading that you filed required by the bankruptcy judge by the particularity i believe i cited to page sixty eight or sixty seven this court and asking for your authority if you know what it is tell me if you don't remember it but i refer to my brief red lights on oh ok if i'm not expecting you to remember if it's in this you want to say just a page sixty seven your brief i don't recall the exact page but every circuit including the circuit to address the issue of substantial sanctions we're not talking about a fifteen hundred dollar fine here every circuit to address the issue of substantial sanctions requires specificity particularity as to what it is that i did