Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03251/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

... 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States u,utc of Appeali 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 8 1990 

In re: VICTOR JOSEPH SCHMIDTBERGER and ) 

JANE (NMN) SCHMIDTBERGER, ) 

) 

Debtors. ) 

) 

) 

) 

CITIZENS STATE BANK OF GRAINFIELD, ) 

KANSAS, ) 

) 

Appellee, ) 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DANE. TURNER and PHILLIP L. TURNER, ) 

) 

Appellants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 89-3250 

& 89-3251 

(D.C. Nos. 86-4347-R) 

& 86-4348-R) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The cases are therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3251 Document: 010110041625 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 1 
Appellants, counsel for debtors Victor Joseph Schmidtberger 

and Jane Schmidtberger, appeal from orders of the district court 

affirming the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions against 

counsel and imposing additional sanctions against them. 

The bankruptcy court imposed sanctions on debtors' counsel on 

the grounds that there was "no basis in fact or law" for counsel 

to file a motion to show cause directed against a secured 

creditor, Citizens State Bank of Grainfield. Debtors appealed 

from the court's order denying their motion for reconsideration, 

and from the court's separate order setting the amount of 

sanctions. The district court affirmed. The district court then 

issued its own order imposing sanctions on counsel pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Counsel filed two notices of appeal to this 

court in their own names, apparently from each district court 

decision. 

Because counsel appealed to this court, we have jurisdiction 

to review the district court's imposition of sanctions. However, 

because only debtors appealed from the bankruptcy court's orders, 

we requested supplemental briefing on whether we have jurisdiction 

to review the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions in light 

of Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988) and 

Concorde Resources, Inc. v. Woosley {In re Woosley), 855 F.2d 687 

(10th Cir. 1988). We also questioned whether the district court 

had jurisdiction to impose sanctions of its own. 

In Torres, the Supreme Court held that all parties taking an 

appeal must be specifically named in the notice of appeal. Here, 

the bankruptcy court imposed sanctions against counsel, not 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3251 Document: 010110041625 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 2 
,.,, 

debtors. The failure of counsel to appeal in their own names to 

the district court left that court without jurisdiction to review 

the merits of the appeal. See Woosley, 855 F.2d at 688. 

Nevertheless, the district court did have jurisdiction to 

impose sanctions. See Wojan v. General Motors Corp., 851 F.2d 

969, 972-73 (7th Cir. 1988)(court has inherent authority to impose 

sanctions under Rule 11 even though it has no power to decide case 

on the merits); Orange Prod. Credit Ass'n v. Frontline Ventures, 

Ltd., 792 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) ( "The fact that the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the 

case did not preclude it from imposing sanctions."). 

We review the district court's order imposing sanctions under 

an abuse of discretion standard. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx 

Corp., 110 S. Ct. 2447, 2461 (1990)("an appellate court should 

apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of 

a district court's Rule 11 determination"); Burkhart Through Meeks 

v. Kinsley Bank, 852 F.2d 512, 515 (10th Cir. 1988)("[t]his 

Circuit is committed to an 'across the board' use of the 'abuse of 

discretion' standard" in reviewing a district court's 

determination of whether there has been a Rule 11 violation). 

The district court imposed sanctions on the grounds that 

debtors' counsel had shown no good cause for filing and 

prosecuting the appeals. On appeal to this court, counsel argue 

only that their actions in the bankruptcy court were justified and 

that they had "sufficient cause" and a "reasonable basis" for 

appealing to the district court. We are not persuaded that the 

district court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3251 Document: 010110041625 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED as to that court's imposition of 

sanctions. The district court's order affirming the bankruptcy 

court's order is VACATED because the district court was without 

jurisdiction to enter such an order. The case is REMANDED with 

directions to dismiss that appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3251 Document: 010110041625 Date Filed: 08/28/1990 Page: 4