## 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, Un ited 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, 8 8 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, Distric t 1 Judge.

___________ BOWMAN, Chief Judge. The Chi cago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union Pensio n Fund a nd its trustees (collectively, the Fund), plaintiffs in the underlying case, appeal from the post-judgment o rder of the District Court denying their motion for sanctions 2 agai nst the law firm of Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle and three individua l attorneys w ho represented the defendants in the underlying case. The Fund filed it s 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 l itigation for which sanctions are sought, the Fund claimed tha t Brot herhoodLabor Leasing and the other defendants owed withdrawal liabilit y 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 a n unpub lishedper curiam opinion on March 18, 1998. See Chicago Truck Drivers , He lpers & Warehouse Workers Union Pension Fund v. Brotherhood Labor Leasing , 141 F.3d 1167 (8t

h 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 fo r sanctions under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the papers related thereto, IT IS H EREBY ORDERED that the motion of plaintiffs fo r sanct ions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Doc. No. 176) i s denied.
We review t

he 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, howev er, leaves us in the dark as to why the court believed that sanctions should b e denied. Without some explanation, even a bri ef one, of the court's reasoning, it is very difficult todetermine, 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 wit h the issues and litigants, the district court is better situated than the court of appeals to mars hal the pertinent facts and apply the fact-dependent legal standard mandated b y Rule 11."). We retain juri sdiction of the appeal. Within sixty days, the District Court shall cert ify 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.