Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15457/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald C. Denis
Appellant
State Farm Life Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15457

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-81234-KLR

RONALD C. DENIS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 17, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Appellant Ronald Denis appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees 

and costs for his repeated discovery violations. After careful review, we affirm.

USCA11 Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 1 of 5
2

Denis served as counsel in the district court for Robert Krupiczer in 

Krupiczer’s suit against Appellee State Farm Life Insurance Company (“State 

Farm”). Krupiczer alleged that State Farm unlawfully failed to pay proceeds from 

a life insurance policy on an individual named Zsolt Rado. State Farm answered 

that Krupiczer had not demonstrated that Rado was deceased, State Farm believed 

Rado to be alive, and Rado had made false representations about the source of his 

income on the life insurance policy application. State Farm also countersued to 

rescind the policy. Discovery began, and Krupiczer and Denis refused to 

cooperate in any of State Farm’s discovery requests notwithstanding an order 

compelling responses to State Farm’s interrogatories and requests for production. 

Krupiczer also failed to appear for his deposition despite State Farm’s repeated 

attempts to contact him and Denis. 

State Farm moved, pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority and 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, to strike Krupiczer’s complaint and dismiss the 

case, for a default judgment, and for attorney’s fees. State Farm’s motion 

contained detailed allegations regarding Krupiczer’s and Denis’s failure to comply 

with the court’s discovery schedule and order on the motion to compel, as well as 

their failure to respond to numerous telephone calls and emails inquiring whether 

Krupiczer intended to pursue the action. State Farm detailed the ways in which it 

had expended attorney’s fees and costs, including: research, issuing subpoenas and 

USCA11 Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 2 of 5
3

reviewing subpoenaed responses, taking depositions of Rado’s prior counsel, 

identifying local counsel in Hungary to assist in investigation and discovery, and 

motions practice related to the discovery violations. State Farm specifically 

alleged that Krupiczer’s actions were in bad faith and warranted severe sanctions. 

Krupiczer and Denis failed to respond to State Farm’s motion despite the 

district court ordering them to do so. The district court granted the motion for 

sanctions, striking Krupiczer’s pleadings, dismissing his claim, awarding State 

Farm a default judgment on its counterclaim, and awarding State Farm 

“reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” of 

Krupiczer and Denis to respond to discovery. Doc. 38 at 10.1

 In its order, the 

district court found that Krupiczer acted in bad faith, willfully noncomplying with 

discovery, State Farm was prejudiced, and lesser sanctions would not serve the 

goals of punishment and deterrence. The district court awarded State Farm 

attorney’s fees and costs based on an affidavit State Farm’s counsel submitted. 

Denis now appeals. 

Denis argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding the 

entire amount of State Farm’s attorney’s fees and costs rather than only those costs 

caused by the noncompliance with discovery. He further complains that the 

district court failed to explain how it calculated the amount of the award. Under 

 1 “Doc.” refers to the docket entry in the district court in this case.

USCA11 Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 3 of 5
4

Rule 37, when a party fails to attend its own deposition, serve answers to 

interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection, “the court must require the 

party failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable 

expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was 

substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). District courts also have inherent authority to impose 

sanctions upon a finding of bad faith. Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th 

Cir. 1998). Ordinarily, we review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order 

on sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 or its inherent authority. Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1146-47 (11th Cir. 2006) (Rule 37); Barnes, 

158 F.3d at 1214 (inherent authority). 

Here, however, Denis failed to assert in the district court the objections he 

now raises. “Appellate courts generally will not consider a legal issue that was not 

presented to the trial court.” Slater v. Energy Servs. Grp., Int’l, 634 F.3d 1326, 

1332 (11th Cir. 2011). We have recognized exceptions to this rule, including:

where (1) the issue involves a pure issue of law and refusal to 

consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the appellant 

did not have the opportunity to raise the issue to the district court; (3) 

substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is beyond any 

doubt; and (5) the issue presents significant questions of great public 

concern.

Id. None of these exceptions applies here. Because determining whether the 

district court was within its discretion to impose sanctions would involve an 

USCA11 Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 4 of 5
5

inquiry into whether its fact findings had sufficient support in the record, Denis’s 

challenges cannot involve a pure issue of law, and the proper resolution necessarily 

is not beyond any doubt. See id; Stewart v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 26 

F.3d 115, 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he resolution of factual questions can never be 

beyond doubt.”). Moreover, Denis had ample opportunity to raise his challenges to 

the district court; indeed, he violated an order to do so. Finally, we do not believe 

Denis’s complaints raise issues of substantial justice or significant questions of 

great public concern.

For these reasons, we decline to address Denis’s arguments, all of which he 

failed to submit to the district court for its consideration in the first instance. We 

affirm the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 5 of 5