United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2004

___________

Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & *

Warehouse Workers Union Pension *

Fund, a pension trust; George Ossey; *

Tony Cullotta; John Broderick; *

William H. Carpenter, the present *

trustees, *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

*

v. *

*

Brotherhood Labor Leasing, a *

Missouri corporation; MFI Leasing *

Company, a Missouri corporation; * Appeal from the United States

Falls City Industries, Inc., a Kentucky * District Court for the

corporation; Middlewest Freightways, * Eastern District of Missouri.

Inc., a Missouri corporation, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Steven M. Gula, *

*

Movant, *

*

Howard D. Lay; Patrick J. Kaine; Brian *

Schmidt; Dysart, Taylor, Lay, Cotter & *

McMonigle, P.C., *

*

Appellees. *
The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 2

District of Missouri, sitting with the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c) (1994 & Supp. II 1996).

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-406, 88

3

Stat. 829 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1994 & Supp. II 1996),

and in scattered sections of the United State Code).

-2-

___________

Submitted: January 12, 1999

Filed: February 1, 1999 

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, Circuit Judge, and ALSOP, District

1

Judge.

___________

BOWMAN, Chief Judge.

The Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union Pension

Fund and its trustees (collectively, the Fund), plaintiffs in the underlying case, appeal

from the post-judgment order of the District Court denying their motion for sanctions 2

against the law firm of Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle and three individual

attorneys who represented the defendants in the underlying case. The Fund filed its

motion pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking sanctions

for "defense counsel's manipulation of the judicial system." Brief of Appellants at xv.

We remand to the District Court, but we retain jurisdiction of the appeal.

In the litigation for which sanctions are sought, the Fund claimed that

Brotherhood Labor Leasing and the other defendants owed withdrawal liability

payments to the Fund according to the provisions of ERISA. The District Court 3
-3-

granted the Fund's motion for summary judgment on its claim. We affirmed in an

unpublished per curiam opinion on March 18, 1998. See Chicago Truck Drivers,

Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union Pension Fund v. Brotherhood Labor Leasing,

141 F.3d 1167 (8th Cir. 1998) (table). The Fund filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions

in June 1997; the District Court denied the motion on March 25, 1998, in a one-page

order. The text of the order in its entirety reads as follows:

After carefully considering the motion of the plaintiffs for

sanctions under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the papers

related thereto,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs for

sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Doc. No. 176) is

denied.

We review the denial of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion. See Cooter

& Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990). The court's order in this case,

however, leaves us in the dark as to why the court believed that sanctions should be

denied. Without some explanation, even a brief one, of the court's reasoning, it is very

difficult to determine, through our independent scouring of the record, whether or not

the court's denial of sanctions was an abuse of its discretion.

Accordingly, we remand to the District Court. See id. at 402 ("Familiar with

the issues and litigants, the district court is better situated than the court of appeals to

marshal the pertinent facts and apply the fact-dependent legal standard mandated by

Rule 11."). We retain jurisdiction of the appeal. Within sixty days, the District Court

shall certify to this Court its findings and conclusions supporting the decision to deny

the Fund's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. We will then decide the merits of the appeal.
-4-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.