FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T NOVE MBER 1 6, 20 10 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 44 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -2 04 18 -WJZ LORING N. SPOLTER, In te res te d P art y App el la nt , ve rs us SUNTRUST BANK, a Geo rg iaCo m

pa ny, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 10 -1 04 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D .C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 8- cv -6 05 65 -WJZ LORING N. SPOLTER In te res te d P art y App el la nt , ve rs us JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. a fo rei gn pro fitco rp or at io n,Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 44 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 6- cv -8 03 34 -WJZ LORING N. SPOLTER In te res te d P art y App el la nt , ve rs us TOYS “ R” US - Del aware , Inc . a Del aware co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 44 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 9- cv -6 02 59 -WJZ LORING N. SPOLTER In te res te d P art y App el la nt , ve rs us D & B TILE OF HIALEAH , INC., a Fl or id a Co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.
2__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m be r 16 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, CARNES a ndHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Lori ng N. Spo lt er ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er i ss ui ng san ct io ns ag ai ns t hi m pu rs uantto Fed . R. Civ . P. 11 (Ru le 11 ), 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7, an d t he co urt’s in he ren t p owe rs . Spo lt er co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enit 1 im po se d m on et ary an d n on -m on et ary sa nc ti on s in res po ns e to hi s fi li ng of 2 m ul ti pl e, su cces si ve m ot io ns for reco ns id erat io n a ndrecu sa l. Sp eci fic al ly, he cl ai m s t ha t t he m ot io ns were wi th in th e b ou nd s o f th e la w, andfurth er tha t t he qu es ti on in g o f th e im

pa rti al it y of adi st ric t co urt ju dg e d oe s n otren de r th e m ot io ns im pr op er. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. 3 This appea l orig inates from a consolidation of four case s, three motions for sa nctions, 1 and the district cour

t’s own impositi on of sanc tions. Spolter was orde red to pa y attorney s’ fe es and c osts in the amount of $99,124.40 and a 2 total fine of $10,000. The order also included suspension fr om prac tice in the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of Florida for a period of 42 months and a ref err al to the Florida Ba r. We reviewa cour

t’s decision to order

sanctions under

Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and 3 the cour t’s inhere nt power f

or an a buse of discr etion. See, e .g., In re Sunshine J r. Stores, Inc. , 456 F.3d 1291, 1304 ( 11th Cir. 2006); Cordoba v. Dillard’s Inc. , 419 F.3d 1169, 1179 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 3A rev ie w of t he reco rd , in cl ud in g the 68 -p ag e d is tri ctco urt o rd er, s ho ws

Sp ol te r ha s b een in te ns el y pe rs is te ntin see ki ng th e rec us al of J ud ge Zlo ch be cau se of a pe rcei ve d b ia s h e b el ie ve s t he jud ge ha s ag ai ns t h im . It i s cl ear f ro m th e reco rdth atSp ol te r ha s re pe at ed ly atte m pt edto crea te th e ap pe aran ce o f im pr op rie ty to fu rth er h is reque st s fo r th e rec us al an d re as si gn m en t o f cas es by Ju dg e Zlo ch . Spo lt er h as rep eat ed ly atta ck edJu dg e Zlo ch ’s fai th an d p ol it ic al affi li at io ns , andha s al so cal le d i nt o que st io n t he cred en ti al s o f so m e o f hi s fo rm er la w cle rk s. Sp ol te r ha s fu rth er i m pu gn edth e d ig ni ty of th e co urt b y all eg in g t ha t bo th Ju dg e Zlo ch an d the Cle rk ’s Offic e h av e m an ip ul at edth e cas e as si gn m en t syste m of t he en ti re So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a fo r th e so le pu rp os e o f en su rin g Ju dg e Zlo ch rece iv es a di sp ro po rti on at e num be r of Sp ol te r’s cas es . Howev er, Sp ol te r ha s fa il edto pro vi de ev ena m ere s ci nt il laof e vi de nc e supp orti ng hi s cl ai m s o f m is co nduc t ag ai ns t Jud ge Zlo ch or t he Cle rk ’s off ic e.

“ Whe n adi st ric t co urt ci te s m ul ti pl e so ur ces of autho rit y foris su in g sa nc ti on s, [o ur ] ba si c ta skin rev ie win g t he san ct io ns is to de te rm in e whe th er the sa nc ti on s wer e p erm is si bl e u nd er atlea ston e o f th os e so ur ces of aut ho rit y .” Amlo ng &Amlo ng

P.A. v. Den ny ’s , Inc
. , 50 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

“ If an y on e o f th e so ur ces of autho rit y in vo ke d b y

th e d is tri ctco urt p ro vi de s a

4so un d b as is forth e sa nc ti on s, we m us t af firm th e sa nc ti on s o rd er.” Se e id
. at 12 39 . Ru le 11 san ct io ns are p ro pe r “ (1 ) whe n apa rty fil es a pl ead in g t ha t ha s n o re as on ab le factua l b as is ; (2 ) whe n t he party fil es a pl ead in g th atis ba se d o n aleg al th eo ry th atha s n o re as on ab le ch an ce o f su cces s an d t ha t ca nn otbe advanc edas areas on ab le arg um en t t o ch an ge ex is ti ng law; an d (3 ) whe n t he party fil es a pl ead in g i n b ad fai th foranim

pr op er p ur

po se .” Jo ne s v. In t’l

Ridin g Helmets , Ltd
. , 49 F.3d69 2, 6 94 (11 thCir . 19 95 ). Furth er,

“ [i]n f il in g apl ead in g i n fe de ral co urt, an att orne y cert ifi es th athe or s he ha s co nduc te d areas on ab le in qu iry andth atth e p le ad in g i s wel l-g ro un de d i n fa ct , le ga ll y ten ab le , andis no t p res en te d fo r an y im pr op er p ur

po se .” Bake r v. Alderman , 15 8 F .3d51 6, 5 24 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ Thi s co urt requi res a two -s te p i nqui ry as t o (1 ) whe th er the party’ s cl ai m s ar e o bjec ti ve ly fri vo lo us ; an d (2 ) whe th er the pe rs on who si gn edth e p le ad in gs sh ou ldha ve be en aware th ey

were fri vo lo us .” Id
. “ Ru le 11 san ct io ns are warran te d wh ena pa rty fil es a pl ead in g t ha t (1 ) ha s n o re as on ab le factua l b as is ; (2 ) is ba se d o n l eg al th eo ry th atha s n o re as on ab le ch an ce o f su cces s an d t ha t ca nn otbe adva nc edas a reas on ab le arg um en t t o c ha ng e ex is ti ng law; an d (3 ) is fil edin ba d fa it h o r fo r an im pr op er p ur

po se .” Id
.

528 U.S.C. § 1 92 7 p ro vi de s “ [a]ny at to rn ey . . . who so m

ul ti pl ie s the pr oc eed in gs in any

cas e u nr eas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y m ay be requi redby the co urt t o s at is fy

pe rs on al ly the ex ces s co st s, ex pe ns es , andatt orne y s’ fees reas on ab ly inc urredbe cau se of s uc h c on du ct .” “ W e h av e co ns is te nt ly hel d t ha t an at to rn ey m ul ti pl ie s p ro ceed in gs ‘ un reas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y ’ withi n the 4 m ean in g o f th e st atut e o nl y when th e atto rn ey ’s con du ctis so eg reg io us th atitis ‘tan tam ou ntto ba d fa it h.’” Se e Amlo ng , 50 0 F .3dat 1 23 9. “ [F]or p ur po se s o f § 1 92 7, b adfai th tu rn s n oton th e at to rn ey ’s subjec ti ve in te nt , bu t o n t he att orne y ’s ob jecti ve co nduc t.” Id
. Three ess en ti al requi rem en ts m us t b e sa ti sf

ie d wi th res pe ctto anawardof s an ct io ns un de r § 1 92 7: Fi rs t, the att orne y

m us t en ga ge in “un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us ” co nduc t. Sec on d, t ha t “ un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us ” co nduc t m us t b e co nduc t tha t “ m

ul ti pl ie s t he pro ceed in gs .” Fin al ly, th e d ol la r am ou nt of th e sa nc ti on m

us t b ear f in an ci al ne xu s t o t he ex ces s p ro ceed in gs , i.e. th e sa nc ti on m ay

no t ex ceedth e “ co st s, ex pe ns es , andatt orne y s’ fees reas on ab ly inc urredbe cau se of s uc h c on du ct .” Pete rs on v. BMI Refr ac to ri es , Inc
. , 12 4 F .3d 13 86 , 13 96 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Fu rth erm or e, “ [i]n o rd er fo r § 1 92 7 t o b e ap pl ic ab le , th ere m us t b e a caus al
“The term ‘unr easona

bly ’ nec essarily

connotes that the district c ourt must compare the 4 attorney' s conduct a g ainst the conduc t of a ‘r easona ble’ a ttorney and make a judgment about whether the conduc t was ac cepta

ble ac cordingto some objective standa rd. The te rm ‘vexatiously ’ similarly

require s an eva luation of the attorne y ' s objective c onduct.” Amlong , 500 F.3d at 1239-40. 6co nn ect io n b etweenth e o bjec ti on ab le co nduc t o f co un se l an d m ul ti pl ic at io n o f th e pr oc eed in gs . . . . ob

jecti on ab le co nduc t-- ev en‘ un reas on ab le an d v ex at io us ’ co nduc t-- is no t s an ct io nabl e u nl es s i t re su lt s i n p ro ceed in gs th atwou ldno t h av e be enco nduc te d o th erwi se .” Id
. Fed eral co urts have th e in he ren t p owe r to im po se san ct io ns on pa rti es an d la wy ers . In r e W

alker , 53 2 F .3d13 04 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). To im po se sa nc ti on s u nd er the co urt's in he ren t p owe r, th e co urt m us t fi ndba d fa it h. Se e id
. (ex pl ai ni ng “ a fi nd in g o f ba d fa it h i s warran te d wh ere a n a tt orne y kn owi ng ly or reck le ss ly rais es a fri vo lo us arg um en t, o r arg ue s a m eri to rio us cla im forth e pu rp os e o f ha ras si ng anop po ne nt .”). Fu rth er, the in he ren t p owe r of a co urt ca n b e in vo ke d e ve n i f pr oc edur al rul es ex is t wh ic h s an ct io n the same con du ct . Ch amb er s v. N ASC O, Inc
. , 50 1 U.S. 3 2, 4 9 (1 99 1) . W e co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enit : (1 ) im po se d a tt orne y ’s fees ag ai ns t Sp ol te r an d h is firm forth e fee s an d c os ts of th e App el le es , th e Cl erkof C ou rt, a ndth e Ass is ta ntUni te d S ta te s At to rn ey s; an d (2 ) fi ne d S po lt er fo r a t ot al am ou ntof $ 10 ,00 0 p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 1. Sp ol te r’s co nduc t i n fi li ng m

ul ti pl e rec us al an d re co ns id erat io n m ot io ns witho utpro vi di ng a go odfai th ba si s s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m po si ti on of s an ct io ns . Even th ou gh Sp ol te r cl ai m s h e h ada go odfai th be li ef the cas e as si gn m en t s y st em op erat edon a 7bl in d ra nd om ba si s b efo re fi li ng hi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, h is cla im s ar e unpe rs ua si ve . The rec or d s ho ws h e was no ti fie d b y a le tt er fro m

th e co urt ex pl ai ni ng ho w th e cas e as si gn m en t s y st em op erat es inth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Fl or id a. If Sp ol te r rev ie wedth e cas e as si gn m en t ru le s ci te d i n t hi s l ette r, he wou ld ha ve kn own th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a d oe s n otop erat e o n apu re b li nd , ran do m ba si s. In st ead , Spo lt er en li st edth e se rv ic es of a n e xp ertfiv e d ay s af te r rece iv in g n ot ifi cat io n fr om th e co urt, an d p ro vi de d h im with i na ccu rat e in fo rm at io n i n a n a tt em

ptto try andpro ve th e cas e as si gn m en t s y st em ha d b een m an ip ul at edan d t ha t Jud ge Zlo ch was b eh in d i t. Fu rth er, Sp ol te r ev enadm it s t ha t pr io r to fil in g h is m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, h e sh ou ldha ve in ve st ig at edth e Co urt’s i nt ern al op erat in g p ro cedur e an d t ha t h e m is ta ke nl y di rect edth e ex pe rt t o as su m e fac ts th athe kn ew were n ottru e. Alt ho ug h S po lt er cl ai m s h e m ad e a g oo d fai th mis take , we bel ie ve Sp ol te r’s act io ns were d on e in ba d fa it h a ndforan im pr op er p ur

po se . Se e Jo ne s , 49 F.3dat 6 94 . Accor di ng ly, we ho ldth e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enitim po se d s an ct io ns ag ai ns t Sp ol te r pu rs ua ntto Ru le 11 . Nex t, we co nc lu de th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enit im po se d a tt orne y s fe es an d c os ts ag ai ns t Sp ol te r pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 92 7. Des pi te hi s co nt en ti on to th e co nt rary, the r eco rdis cle ar tha t Sp ol te r ha s fi le d 8nu m ero us m ot io ns in ba d fa it h a ndforanim pr op er p ur

po se . Furt he r, th e fi li ng of th es e m ot io ns “ m

ul ti pl ie d t he pro ceed in gs ” b ot h u nr eas on ab ly andve xa ti ou sl y ba se d o n t he ob

jecti ve co nduc t o f Sp ol te r. Se e Amlo ng , 50 0 F .3dat 1 23 9. Alt ho ug h S po lt er ar gu es th e m ot io ns fil edwere m ad e in subjec ti ve go odfai th , ba se d o n t he in fo rm at io n t he n kno wn t o h im , th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces supp orts a fi nd in g o f ob

jecti ve un reas on ab le ne ss . Last ly, fo r th e sa m e rea so ns th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edSp ol te r’s act io ns to be san ct io nabl e u nd er Ru le 11 an d § 19 27 , we con cl ud e th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh enit(1) referredSp ol te r to th e Fl or id a Bar ; (2 ) as se ss ed at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts ag ai ns t Sp ol te r an d h is firm ; (3 ) fi ne d S po lt er an d h is firm $1 0,0 00 ; an d (4 ) su sp en de d S po lt er fro m pra ct ic e in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a fo r a p eri odof 4 2 m on th s p ur su an t t o i ts in he ren t p owe rs . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. AFFIRMED.

9