FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 17, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble R. David Proctor, United States District Judg e for the Northern District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15932

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 8 9 2 - C V- OR L - 3 1 - J GG K E V I N H . H U D S O N , a n in d iv id u a l, P l ai nt i ff , B AS YL E J . T C HI VI DJ I AN , T H E L A W F I R M O F L A N D I S G R A H A M F R E N C H , P .A ., C R A I G L . B E R M A N , B E R M A N L A W F I R M , P . A ., I n te r e s te d P a r tie s - A p p e lle e s , v ersu s I N T E RN A T I O N A L C O M P U T E R N E G O T I A T I O N S , I N C ., a F lo r id a C o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 17, 2007) Be f o r e D U BI N A a n d M A RCU S, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d PRO CTO R, D i stri ctJudg e. *M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e:

Int ernat i on al C om pu t erN egot i at i on s, Inc. (“ IC N ”) appeal s f rom a di stri ct courtorder denyi ng sa nct i on s und erT i t l e 28 U . S . C . § 1 92 7, agai nstatt orney Ba s y l e J . Tc h i v i d

j i a n , h i s l a w f

i rm L a n d i s Gr a h a m F r e n c h , P. A. , a tt o rn e y Cr a i g L. B e rm a n , a n d h is la w f

irm B e rm a n L a w F irm , P .A ., f o rth e irc o n d u c t in r e pr e s e nt i ng a pl a i nt i f

f i n a w r ongf

ul di s c ha r ge s ui ta ga i ns tI C N . A f t e rthor ough r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . T he e s s e nt i a l f

a c t s a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory a r e the s e . T hi s appe a l r e ga r di ng a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s s oughtunde r§ 1927 a r i s e s outof the unde r l y i ng w r ongf

ul d is c h a r g e s u it b r o u g h t b y K e v in H u d s o n ( “H u d s o n ” ) p u r s u a n t to th e F lo r id aC iv il R i gh t s A ctof 19 92 , F l a. S t at . § 7 60 , etse q. (“ F C R A ”) , and § 51 0 o f the E m pl oyee R e tir e m e n t a n d I n c o m e S e c u r ity A c t, 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 4 0 ( “E R I S A ” ) , a g a in s t h is f o rm e re m p lo y e r , ap p e lla n t I C N . F r o m M a y 1 9 9 7 th r o u g h N o v e m b e r2 0 0 2 , H u d s o n w o rk e d f o rI C N , a c ons ul t i ng a nd e duc a t i ona l or ga ni z a t i on tha ta dvi s e s a nd tr a i ns t e c hnol ogy p ro cu rem en tp ro fessi o n al s an d o th ers i n v o l v ed i n n eg o t i at i n g l arg e b u si n ess tr a ns a c t i ons . H uds on s e rve d a s the D i r e c t orof C A U C U S , a n ope r a t i ng di vi s i on of I C N th a t s e rv e s a s a n a s s o c ia tio n o f te c h n o lo g y p r o c u r e m e n t p r o f e s s io n a ls w ith c h ap te r s th r o u g h o u t th e c o u n try . C A U C U S m e m b e r s h ip p r o v id e s a c c e s s to qua r t e r l y e duc a t i ona l m e e t i ngs , onl i ne f or a , c onf e r e nc e s a nd s e m i na r s , a nd a3

cert i fi cat i o n p ro g ram , an d H u d so n ’ s resp o n si b i l i t i es i n cl u d ed o rg an i zi n g th ese m e e t i ngs a nd i nc r e a s i ng m e m be r s hi p. H uds on’ s a t - w i l l e m pl oy m e nta gr e e m e nt cont ai ned a on e- ye arno n-com pet e c l ause as w el l as a t en-y ea r non -di sc l osure cl ause . B y the t i m e of hi s t erm i nat i on , H ud son’ s benef i t s i ncl ud ed short -t erm d i sab i l i ty, w h o se p rem i u m s IC N p ai d fo r, as w el l as o p t i o n al l o n g -t erm d i sab i l i ty, w h o s e p r e m iu m s H u d s o n w o u ld b e r e s p o n s ib le f o rif h e e le c te d th a t c o v e r a g e . I C N ’s f o u n d e ra n d P r e s id e n t, J o s e p h A u e rI I I ( “A u e r ” ) , te s tif ie d in de pos i t i on tha the w a s “ ge ne r a l l y a w a r e of [ H uds on’ s ] bus i ne s s a c t i vi t i e s a nd perf orm ance ” e ar l y i n H ud son’ s t enure atIC N , and that“ [a ] l tho ug h there w er e s om e a s pe c t s of

hi s pe r f orm a nc e tha tI thoughtw e r e notpa r t i c ul a r l y s tr ong a nd s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d o n e d if f e r e n tly o rb e tte r , H u d s o n h a d u s u a lly d o n e a c c e p tab le w ork. ” I n the fa l l of 20 01 , ho w ever , H ud son cam e und erA uer’ s di re ct supervi si on . A uer t es t i fi ed thatby l at e 200 1 o r e ar l y 200 2 h e r ea l i ze d that H ud son’ s per form ance fe l l “ fa r bel ow w hatI e xp ec t ed and requi re d. ” A uer began t o o bj ec tt o sever al as pect s of H ud son’ s per form ance . H ud son ackno w l edges that A uer r epea t edl y e xp re ss ed di ss at i sf ac t i on ov erthese i ss ues, al tho ug h h e def ended hi s pe r f orm a nc e a ga i ns tA ue r ’ s c r i t i que s a nd a r gue d tha tA ue r ’ s m e thod of voi c i ng c r itic is m w a s ab u s iv e . A l l part i es agre e thatA uer a nd H ud son’ s r el at i on shi p b egan t o d et er i orat e a t thi s poi nt . H ow ever , al tho ug h A uer w ou l d o ft en obj ec tt o H ud son’ s per form ance , s om e t i m e s i n f

r ontof othe re m pl oy e e s , A ue ri ndi c a t e d on m or e tha n one oc c a s i on,4

w hen asked by H ud son, thathe di d n otw antH ud son’ s r es i gn at i on . Inst ea d, A uer a s s u r e d H u d s o n th a t h e w a s a “v a lu ab le m e m b e ro f th e te a m .” M o r e o v e r , in A ug ust20 02 , i n ant i ci pat i on of t aki ng a s abbat i ca l fr om IC N , A uer c re at ed an E xe c ut i ve C om m i tt e e t o run the c om pa ny i n hi s abs e nc e . A ue ri nc l ude d H uds on o n th e co m m i tt ee, an d g av e each m em b er o f th e co m m i tt ee a raise. H u d so n al so general l y r ec ei ved ann ual ra i se s duri ng hi s t i m e a tIC N . N everthel es s, a f ew m onths be f

or e hi s t e rm i na t i on i n N ove m be r2002, H uds on be ga n s e e ki ng altern ativ e e m p lo ym en t b ec au se h e w as n o t h ap p y a t IC N u n d erA u er ’s s upe rvi s i on. O n o rab o u t S e p te m b e r6 , 2 0 0 2 , A u e rw a s e n te r in g I C N ’s o f f ic e s w h ile H ud son w as l ea vi ng . A uer a sked H ud son w here he w as go i ng , and n ot ed that H u d s o n h a d b e e n le a v in g th e o f f ic e o f te n . A t H u d s o n ’s r e q u e s t, th e y p r o c e e d e d to A ue r ’ s of

f i c e , w he r e H uds on e xpl a i ne d tha the w a s s e e i ng aps y c hol ogi s ta nd a psyc hi atri stfor depres si on , and thathe had cho se n p rovi ders cl ose t o IC N ’ s off i ce s s o th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e to ta k e m u c h tim e o f f . A c c o r d in g to H u d s o n , A u e rs a id thathe un ders t oo d and thathe w as supp ort i ve. B oth agree thatthe bri ef c o n v e r s a tio n e n d e d th e r e . I n e a r l y Oc t o b e r , Au e ra s k e d Hu d s o n h o w h e e n s u r e d th a tn e w C AU C US m e m b e r s we r e m a d e a wa r e o f th e “ l i s ts e rv e ” I C N p r o v i d e s , wh i c h a l l o ws m em bers t o com m un i ca t e w i th eac h o ther a nd shar e i deas . A cc ordi ng t o A uer, H u d s o n s a id th a t it h a d b e e n h is lo n g s ta n d in g p r a c tic e to h a v e h is a s s is ta n t, B o n n ie5

W h ita k e r( “W h ita k e r ” ) , c o n ta c t e a c h n e w m e m b e ra n d e x p la in th e lis t s e rv e to h im or her. W hen A uer l at erqu es t i on ed H ud son’ s a ss i st antabou tthi s pra ct i ce , she w as a t f ir s t e v a s iv e , b u t e v e n tu a lly c o n f e s s e d th a t H u d s o n h a d o n ly r e c e n tly to ld h e rto begi n con t ac t i ng new m em bers t o t el l them abou tthe l i stse rve, thatno on e had previ ou sl y bee n d oi ng so, and thatH ud son h ad further i nstruct ed her thati f A uer as ked, t o t el l hi m thatshe had been engaged in the pract i ce for al on g t i m e. A uer t e s t i f i e d tha t“ [ i ] ns truc t i ng a n e m pl oy e e t o l i e t o m e w a s the l a s ts tr a w , ” a nd he de c i de d t o f

i r e H uds on. H ow e ve r , A ue rs a y s tha the de c i de d t o w a i tt o f i r e H uds on un t i l af t erthe concl usi on of w hatw as atthatt i m e the bi gg es teventIC N had pr oduc e d - - the a nnua l C A U C U S c onf e r e nc e s c he dul e d i n N e w O r l e a ns f orthe thi r d w e e k of

O c t obe r2002, a l l a s pe c t s of w hi c h H uds on w a s r e s pons i bl e f or o r g a n iz in g a n d p r o d u c in g . A l tho ug h A uer c on ce des thatthe confere nce “ w entw el l ov er al l , ” a nd that “c e r ta in ly H u d s o n p u t lo ts o f w o rk in to it,” A u e ro b s e rv e d “a d d itio n a l is s u e s . . . w i th H uds on’ s pe r f

orm a nc e ” tha tc onf

i rm e d hi s de c i s i on t o t e rm i na t e H uds on f or poorpe r f

orm a nc e . H ow e ve r , H uds on a nd A ue rdi d nots e e e a c h othe ra f t e rthe c onf e r e nc e unt i l A ue rf

i r e d H uds on on N ove m be r12. P ri or t o that , i n the w ee ks l ea di ng up t o h i s t erm i nat i on , H ud son app roac hed I C N ’s C h ie f

F in a n c ia l O f

f ic e rD a n ie l W a lla c e ( “W a lla c e ” ) , w h o w a s r e s p o n s ib le f orc e r t a i n hum a n r e s our c e s t a s ks , abouti ns ur a nc e que s t i ons he ha d c onc e rni ng s om e of the e m pl oy e e s w orki ng unde rH uds on. W a l l a c e appa r e nt l y di d notha ve6

re ady a nsw er s t o eac h o f H ud son’ s quest i on s a tthatt i m e. IC N ’ s off

i ce m anager, D eborah R osenbl um (“ R osenbl um ”) , t es t i fi ed that d u r in g “th e la tte rp a r t” o f H u d s o n ’s tim e a t I C N , h e c o n f id e d to h e rth a t h e w a s in c ouns e l i ng f

orj ob- r e l a t e d pr e s s ur e s , i nc l udi ng the w a y he be l i e ve d he w a s be i ng tr e a t e d by A ue r , a nd tha the w a s be i ng tr e a t e d f orde pr e s s i on. H uds on s a y s he c onf i de d i n R os e nbl um be c a us e s he ha d c onf i de d i n hi m abouta s i m i l a rs i tua t i on a f f e c t i ng s om e one c l os e t o he r , be c a us e s he “ ke pttr a c k of w he r e e ve ry one w a s [ s o] I ne e de d t o t e l l he rtha tI w oul d be goi ng out , ” be c a us e he “ ne e de d s om e one i n the of f i c e t o know w ha tw a s goi ng on, j us tbe c a us e of the na tur e of

the s i tua t i on, ” a nd be c a us e “ s he w a s the be ne f i t s c oor di na t or , . . . s o [ i tw a s ] ki nd of ha r d t o hi de a n y th in g f

r o m th a t p e r s o n .” O n O ct ob er28 and agai n o n N ov em ber 4, H ud son asked R osenbl um for a copy of hi s l on g-t erm di sabi l i ty pol i cyor for det ai l ed i nform at i on abou tw hat di sabi l i ty benef

i t s he had. O n b oth o cc as i on s s he sa i d thatshe di d n othave that i nform at i on , and thatH ud son w ou l d h ave t o o bt ai n i tfr om the i nsurance c arri er i t s e l f . O n N ove m be r5, the i ns ur a nc e c om pa ny f a xe d t o H uds on’ s hom e one pa ge f r o m h is lo n g - te rm d is ab ility p o lic y c o n c e rn in g a m e n ta l illn e s s /m e n ta l h e a lth pr ovi s i on. T he r e i s no i ndi c a t i on f r om the f a x i t s e l f tha ti tw a s c opi e d t o a ny one e l s e , a n d Hu d s o n d i d n o ts h a r e i twi th a n y o n e a tI C N. O n N ove m be r5 or6, W a l l a c e pa s s e d H uds on i n the I C N of f i c e s a nd in d ic a te d th a t h e w o u ld g e t b a c k to h im ab o u t a n in s u r a n c e q u e s tio n , w h ic h h e d id7

n o t m o r e s p e c if

ic a lly d e s c r ib e . O n N ov em ber 12, 20 02 , the fi rs tt i m e A uer s aw H ud son aft erthe O ct ob er c onf e r e nc e , A ue rpe r s ona l l y t e rm i na t e d H uds on. A ue rt e s t i f i e d tha the w a s the s ol e de c i s i on- m a ke r . A ue re xpl a i ne d tha the “ di s c us s e d w i th [ H uds on] tha tthi ngs w er e j ustno tw orki ng ou t , ” a nd A uer l i st ed som e of the performance i ss ues that ha d be e n tr oubl i ng hi m s i nc e l a t e 2001 ore a r l y 2002. A ue rs a i d tha t“ the c onve r s a t i on w a s a c tua l l y pr e tty a m i c abl e a nd bus i ne s s - l i ke , ” a nd tha tH uds on

“ br oa c he d the s ubj e c tof hi s buy i ng C A U C U S f r om I C N . ” H uds on a gr e e s tha the m a y h a v e b r o a c h e d th e id e a . O n N ove m be r21, 2002, H uds on m e tw i th hi s a tt orne y , T c hi vi dj i a n, f orthe f i r s tt i m e t o s e e k l e ga l a dvi c e c onc e rni ng hi s abi l i ty t o pr oc ur e une m pl oy m e nt c om pe ns a t i on, a l though he a l s o m e nt i one d tha the w a s s uf f e r i ng f r om de pr e s s i on a nd ha d be e n t e rm i na t e d j us ts e ve r a l da y s a f t e ra s ki ng R os e nbl um abouthi s l ongte rm d is ab ility in s u r a n c e p o lic y . S h o r tly th e r e a f te r , ab o u t o n e m o n th a f

te rh is t erm i n at i o n , H u d so n fi l ed fo r an d recei v ed u n em p l o ym en tb en efi t s. Be tw e e n l a t e N o v e mb e r2 0 0 2 a n d mi d - J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 , H u d s o n a n d I CN engaged i n p rotra ct ed se vera nce negot i at i on s thatgrew cont ent i ou s. O n D ec em ber 11 , 20 02 , W al l ac e s entH ud son a l ett erre m i nd i ng hi m of hi s obl i gat i on t o adh er e to th e n o n - c o m p e te a n d n o n - d is c lo s u r e p r o v is io n s o f h is e m p lo y m e n t a g r e e m e n t, a nd w a rne d tha tI C N w oul d t a ke a ny a c t i on ne c e s s a ry i n r e s pons e t o a vi ol a t i on of thi s a gree m ent . O n January 17 , 20 03 , H ud son res po nd ed thathe w as “ no tsubj ec t8

t o a nys uc h a gr e e m e nt , ” tha ti n f a c the “ m a y be e nga gi ng i n e m pl oy m e ntor o w n e r s h ip in th e te c h n o lo g y a r e n a ,” a n d lik e w is e w a rn e d th a t h e w o u ld ta k e “a ll a c t i on . . . ne c e s s a ry ” t o pr e ve ntI C N f r om i nhi bi t i ng hi m . O n J a nua ry 30, 2003, H u d so n an d atto rn ey T ch iv id ji an m et ag ain , th is ti m e to d iscu ss H u d so n ’s s e v e r a n c e n e g o t i a t i o n s w i th I CN . A l th o u g h th e y d i s c u s s e d th e l e g a l c l a i ms H ud son m i gh thave agai nstIC N , T chi vi dj i an advi se d thatcorr ob orat i ng evi dence w a s ne e de d. I n M a r c h 2 0 0 3 , a f

te rtu rn in g d o w n m u ltip le jo b o f f e r s , H u d s o n s ta r te d h is ow n b usi ness , T ec hn ol og y P rocurement E du ca t i on N etw ork, Inc. (“ T P E N ”) . In m id - 2 0 0 3 , I C N le a rn e d ab o u t T P E N , a n d o n J u ly 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , I C N s u e d H u d s o n in th e C ir c u it C o u r t f

o rth e N in th J u d ic ia l C ir c u it, in O r a n g e C o u n ty , F lo r id a , to e n f o r c e th e n o n - c o m p e te , n o n - d is c lo s u r e , a n d c o n f id e n tia lity c la u s e s o f

h is e m p lo y m e n t a g r e e m e n t. O n A ug ust29 , 20 03 , T chi vi dj i an, w ho had n otm etw i th H ud son si nce J a nua ry , f

i l e d a n a ns w e ron H uds on’ s be ha l f . I n hi s a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e s , H uds on al l eged for the fi rs tt i m e - - nea rl y t en m on ths af t erhi s t erm i nat i on -- thathe had be e n unl a w f

ul l y t e rm i na t e d be c a us e of a di s abi l i ty . S om e t i m e be tw e e n A ugus ta nd N ov em ber, H ud son cal l ed T chi vi dj i an t o i nform hi m thathe had l ocat ed the fa x s e n t d ir e c tly f

r o m th e in s u r e rto H u d s o n ’s h o m e c o n ta in in g th e p o r tio n o f h is i ns ur a nc e pl a n pe r t a i ni ng t o hi s l ong- t e rm di s abi l i ty be ne f i t s . I n N ove m be r2003, ab o u t a ye araf

ter H u d so n ’s term in atio n , T ch iv id ji an filed a c o m p lain t o n H u d so n ’sSe c tio n 5 10 of ERI SA p ro vide s, in re leva nt p art : 1 It s h al l b e un lawful for any person to discha

rg e . . . a pa

rticipant or benefic iary

for exercising any ri ght to which he is entitled under theprovisions of an employee bene fit pl an . . . or

fo r t hepurp os eof

interf eringwith t

heattainm ent o f a

ny ri ght to which such pa

rticipant may

becomeentitled under theplan . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 1140. 9 b eh alf w ith th e F lo rid a C o m m issio n o n H u m an R ig h ts, all eg in g th at IC N ’s t erm i n at i o n o f H u d so n co n st i tu t ed d i scri m i n at i o n o n th e b asi s o f d i sab i l i ty. N i net ee n m on ths af

t erhi s t erm i nat i on -- on June 10 , 20 04 -- T chi vi dj i an fi l ed thi s s ui tagai nstIC N on H ud son’ s behal f i n the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f F lo r id a , a lle g in g th a t A u e rte rm in a te d h im b e c a u s e o f h is d e p r e s s io n , w h ic h h e s a id c o n s titu te d a d is ab ility , in v io la tio n o f th e F lo r id aC iv il R ig h ts A c t o f

1 9 9 2 , F la . S ta t. § 7 6 0 , e t s e q . ( “F C R A ” ) , a n d in o r d e rto d e p r iv e h im of l ong- t e rm di s abi l i ty be ne f i t s , i n vi ol a t i on of

§ 510 of the E m pl oy e e R e t i r e m e nt a n d I n c o m e S e c u r ity A c t, 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 4 0 ( “E R I S A ” ) . H u d s o n a ls o b r o u g h t a 1 cl ai m un der F l ori da com m on l aw , al l egi ng thatIC N negl i gent l y m i sr epre se nt ed tha the w oul d notbe f

i r e d i n the m onths l e a di ng up t o hi s t e rm i na t i on. T he c om pl a i nta l s o c l a i m e d tha tA ue r ’ s abus e i n the w orkpl a c e w a s the c a us e of H uds on’ s de pr e s s i on. A s the di stri ctcourtw ou l d l at erfi nd i n i t s f i rs tsa nct i on s order , “ IC N w as fo rced t o fi l e th ree sep arat e m o t i o n s t o co m p el th e p ro d u ct i o n o f d o cu m en t s, com pl et e a nsw er s t o i nt errogat ori es , and R ul e 26 d i sc l osures . ” D es pi t e the fa ct10

th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d e a c h o f th e s e m o tio n s , H u d s o n f a ile d to c o m p ly w ith atl ea ston e of them , forc i ng IC N t o fi l e y etanother m ot i on t o com pel com pl i ance w i th the court ’ s order , w hi ch the courtgrant ed and p ursuantt o w hi ch i taw ar ded a tt o rn e y s ’ f

e e s t o I C N. I C N s ubpoe na e d H uds on’ s m e nt a l he a l th r e c or ds , w hi c h H uds on di d not have and w hi ch T chi vi dj i an had n otre vi ew ed pri or t o fi l i ng the l aw sui t . T hey r e ve a l e d tha tH uds on ha d be e n s e e i ng am e nt a l he a l th pr of e s s i ona l w e l l be f

or e he b e g a n w o rk in g f

o rI C N , th a t d u r in g a ll tim e s o f tr e a tm e n t H u d s o n h a d b e e n ab le to w ork, a nd tha thi s ps y c hi a tr i s tbe l i e ve d H uds on t o be a c apabl e pe r s on. A s the di stri ctcourtw ou l d l at erfi nd , the confl i ct i ng evi dence on thi s i ss ue show ed that H ud son h ad suff

er ed “ m aj or depres si on ” pri or t o h i s t erm i nat i on , bu thad n otbeen

“ cl i ni ca l l y depre ss ed” a tthe t i m e of hi s t erm i nat i on . In any c as e, the court det erm i ned, there w as no evi dence thatH ud son’ s depre ss i on subst ant i al l y l i m i t ed h is ab ility to w o rk , a n d th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t H u d s o n w a s , a t th e tim e o f th is s u it, ab le to “f

u lly f u n c tio n in lif

e .” T chi vi dj i an t oo k sever al depo si t i on s, m ostof w hi ch fa i l ed t o sup po rt H u d so n ’s claim s. R o se n b lu m testified th at sh e h ad n o t m en ti o n ed H u d so n ’s in q u iry to a n y o n e , in c lu d in g A u e ra n d W a lla c e . W a lla c e te s tif ie d th a t in h is N o v e m b e r5 o r6 c o m m e n t to H u d s o n in d ic a tin g th a t h e w o u ld g e t b a c k to h im abou tan i nsurance quest i on , he w as re fe rr i ng t o o ne of the qu es t i on s H ud son h ad a s ke d hi m abouta n e m pl oy e e unde rH uds on’ s s upe rvi s i on, a nd tha the ha d no11

know l e dge tha tH uds on ha d m a de a ny i ns ur a nc e - r e l a t e d i nqui r i e s abouthi m s e l f or th a t H u d s o n w a s r e c e iv in g a n y s o r t o f c o u n s e lin g o rtr e a tm e n t f o rd e p r e s s io n . A ue rt e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d no know l e dge tha tH uds on ha d i nqui r e d abouthi s l ongt erm di sabi l i ty benef

i t s, and thathe di d n otvi ew H ud son as bei ng di sabl ed base d on the s i ngl e c om m e ntH uds on m a de t o hi m i ndi c a t i ng tha the w a s s e e i ng a profes si on al for depres si on . A uer observed thathe al on e m ade the deci si on t o fi re H ud son w hen, af

t erw hathe consi dere d t o b e aye arof subst andard performance, he l e a rne d tha tH uds on ha d a s ke d W hi t a ke rt o l i e t o hi m . F i na l l y , a l though by the t i m e of herdepo si t i on she her se l f had been t erm i nat ed by IC N , W hi t aker c o n f irm e d th a t A u e rh a d r e p e a te d ly “r a is e d is s u e s w ith H u d s o n ” ab o u t h is perf orm ance , thatH ud son h ad i nstruct ed her t o l i e t o A uer, and thatw hen A uer l ea rned of the fabri ca t i on he became “ veryup se t . ” T he on l y t es t i m on y t o sup po rtH ud son’ s c as e c am e i n the form of an a f f i da vi ts ubm i tt e d by f

orm e rI C N e m pl oy e e L a r aP r oc t or , H uds on’ s e xe c ut i ve as si st antbegi nn i ng i n M ay20 00 . P roct or sw ore that“ [e ] very on e i n the offi ce kne w tha t[ R os e nbl um ] ’ s pr i m a ry r ol e a tI C N w a s t o ke e p [ A ue r ] i nf orm e d about w h a t w a s g o in g o n in th e o f f ic e . . . . B a s e d u p o n p r io re x p e r ie n c e s , w e w e r e a ll a w a r e th a t w h a te v e rw a s s h a r e d w ith [ R o s e n b lu m ] w o u ld b e s u b s e q u e n tly c o m m u n ic a te d to [ A u e r ]. T h e r e is n o d o u b t th a t [ R o s e n b lu m ] w o u ld h a v e to ld [A uer] that[H ud son] w as se eki ng i nform at i on on bo th sho rtand l on g t erm d is ab ility .”12

I C N m ove d f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nton a l l thr e e c ount s , a r gui ng tha t , a s f or th e E R I S A c la im , th e e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t A u e ra lo n e m a d e th e d e c is io n to t erm i nat e H ud son, thathe w as no taw ar e of H ud son’ s i nq ui ryre gardi ng l on g-t erm d isab il ity, an d th at as fo r th e F C R A claim , th e e v id en ce sh o w ed th at H u d so n ’s al l eged depress i on had n otcom e c l ose t o sub st ant i al l y i m pai ri ng a m aj or l i fe act i v i ty. In su m , IC N arg u ed th atH u d so n co u l d n o tm ak e o u ta p ri m a faci e case unde re i the rs t a tut e , a nd tha te ve n i f he c oul d, I C N ha d s how n l e gi t i m a t e nondi s c r i m i na t ory r e a s ons f orhi s t e rm i na t i on. I C N a l s o a r gue d, w i th r e s pe c tt o the n e g lig e n t m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n c la im , th a t H u d s o n c o u ld n o t h a v e r e lie d to h is de tr i m e nton a ny thi ng A ue rt ol d hi m be c a us e the e vi de nc e s how e d tha tH uds on h a d b e e n a c tiv e ly s e e k in g a lte rn a tiv e e m p lo y m e n t m o n th s b e f o r e h is te rm in a tio n . H u d so n an d T ch i v i d

j i an arran g ed fo r B erm an t o p rep are H u d so n ’ s resp o n se t o I C N ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nt . T ha tr e s pons e aba ndone d the ne gl i ge nt m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n c la im . I t d id , h o w e v e r , o p p o s e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to h is cl ai m s und erE R IS A and the F C R A , ar gu i ng thata genui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fa ct e x is te d c o n c e rn in g A u e r ’s k n o w le d g e o f H u d s o n ’s in q u iry to R o s e n b lu m ; th a t h is de pr e s s i on ha d s ubs t a nt i a l l y l i m i t e d hi s abi l i ty t o i nt e r a c tw i th othe r s a nd c onc e ntr a t e , hi s e m ot i ona l s t abi l i ty , hi s s e xua l dr i ve , a nd hi s abi l i ty t o s l e e p; a nd th a t e v e n if

H u d s o n w a s n o t d is ab le d , A u e rh a d te rm in a te d H u d s o n b a s e d o n h is pe r c e pt i on tha tH uds on w a s di s abl e d. B e rm a n a l s o a r gue d ge ne r a l l y tha tthe13

un di sput ed fa ct s harm ful t o H ud son’ s c l ai m s m ustbe di sr egar ded b ec ause they cam e fro m th e t est i m o n y o f i n t erest ed p art i es. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o I C N on a l l c ount s . A s f or th e E R I S A c la im , th e c o u r t f o u n d th a t H u d s o n c o u ld n o t s h o w th a t A u e r , th e s o le d e c i s i o n - ma k e r , “ h a d th e s p e c i f i c i n t e n tt o i n t e r f

e r e w i th [ H u d s o n ’ s ] ERI SA r i ght s , ” w hi c h i s the “ ‘ ul t i m a t e i nqui ry i n a § 510 c a s e . ’ ” O r de ra t8- 9 ( quot i ng C l a rk v. C oa t s & C l a rk, I nc . , 990 F . 2d 1217, 1222- 23 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ) . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e “b e s t” H u d s o n c o u ld d o w a s o f f e rh is

“ u n su p p o rt ed assu m p t i o n ” th atR o sen b l u m t o l d A u er o f H u d so n ’ s req u est concerni ng l on g-t erm di sabi l i ty - - a n ass um pt i on the courtsa i d w as “ further w e a ke ne d by e vi de nc e . . . s how i ng tha tR os e nbl um di d noti nf orm a ny one . . . , a nd thatA uer w as no taw ar e of thatre qu es tpri or t o H ud son’ s t erm i nat i on . ” A s f o rth e F C R A c la im , th e c o u r t f o u n d th a t H u d s o n c o u ld n o t s h o w th a t h is d e p r e s s io n s u b s ta n tia lly lim its a m a jo rlif e a c tiv ity , in p a r tic u la r , h is ab ility to w ork, norha d H uds on e s t abl i s he d tha the w a s r e ga r de d a s be i ng i m pa i r e d. I ns t e a d, the c our tf

ound tha tboth be f

or e a nd a f

t e rhi s t e rm i na t i on, H uds on e nga ge d i n a s u c c e s s f u l jo b s e a r c h a n d s ta r te d h is o w n c o m p a n y . T h e c o u r t c o n c lu d e d : H udson ha s utt e r l y f

a i l e d t o s uppor thi s c l a i m s unde rboth E R I S A a nd F C R A . P art i cul a r l y gi ve n the c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e a nd the t i m i ng of

thi s s ui t , i tappears t h atthi s s ui ti s l i tt l e m or e tha n a r e t a l i a t ory a c t i on by H udso n i n re s pons e t o I C N ’ s s ui tr e ga r di ng the n o n - c o m p e te a g r e e m e n t . I n d e e d , th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , c o m b in e d w ith H u d s o n ’ s u tt e ri n ab i l i ty t o s u p p o r th i s c l a i ms [ , ] ma k e hi s c l a i ms ap p ear l i tt l e m o re th an fri v o l o u s.At

va ri ou s p oints d

uringbo th t

hetrial and

a pp e llatec ourt

proc e e ding s, Tchividj ian o ff ere d to 2 drop this caseif I CN would drop the state c laim, with neither par ty rec eivingany

attorneys’ fe es in either action. 14 C ou nsel T chi vi dj i an t i m el y f i l ed a not i ce of appeal and B erm an prepare d a n d f i l e d H u d s o n ’ s ap p e l l a t e b r i e f i n w h i c h h e ma d e e s s e n t i a l l y th e s a me ar gu m ent s he pre se nt ed i n h i s opp osi t i on t o sum m ary j ud gm ent . In a bri ef , un pu bl i shed per c uri am op i ni on , a panel of thi s C ou rtaf fi rm ed w i tho utoral ar gu m ent , agre ei ng w i th the di stri ctcourtthatH ud son’ s “ ut t eri nabi l i ty t o sup po rt hi s c l ai m s” m ade them “ l i tt l e m ore than fri vo l ou s. ” N o. 05 -167 38 (11th C i r. A pr. 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 ). IC N th en m o v ed fo r att o rn eys’ fees ag ai n stH u d so n an d h i s att o rn eys u n d e r§ 1 1 3 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) o f

E R I S A , § 7 6 0 .1 1 ( 5 ) o f th e F C R A , a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 7 . B y s e pa r a t e or de r , w e gr a nt e d I C N ’ s unoppos e d m ot i on t o tr a ns f e rc ons i de r a t i on of appe l l a t e a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s t o the di s tr i c tc our t . S e e N o. 05- 16738 ( 11th C i r . J ul y 5, 20 06 ). 2 O n rem and, the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d IC N ’ s m ot i on as t o b oth d i stri ct co u rtan d ap p el l at e att o rn eys’ fees u n d er E R IS A , th e F C R A , an d § 1 9 2 7 ag ai n st H u d s o n , T c h iv id

jia n , a n d B e rm a n . B e rm a n f ile d o n e o p p o s itio n o n h is o w n b e h a lf a nd a s e c ond one on H uds on’ s be ha l f , both of w hi c h r e l i e d on thi s C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n C ordo ba v. D i l l ar d’ s, Inc. , 41 9 F . 3d 11 69 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T chi vi dj i an fi l ed an op po si t i on on hi s ow n b ehal f. O n J ul y 20, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d i t s f i r s tor de ron thi s i s s ue w hi c h,15

am on g o thers , as se ss ed att orneys ’ fe es agai nstl aw ye rs T chi vi dj i an and B erm an pe r s ona l l y unde r§ 1927. T he c our tc onc l ude d: W hi l e no one c ons i de rat i o n , s t a ndi ng a l one , w oul d be s uf f i c i e ntf or the C ou rtt o i m po se sa nct i on s u n d er S ec t i on 19 27 , the C ou rtfi nd s that i n com bi nat i on , the fr i vo l ou s nature of the cl ai m , H ud son’ s r et al i at ory m o tiv e , c o u n s e l’s h a n d lin g o f th e c a s e p a r tic u la r ly a s it r e la te s to di sc ov ery, an d the cont i nu ed ef fort s t o sup po rtthe cl ai m s i n the fa ce of both a l a c k of

s u p p o r t i ng e vi de nc e a nd c l e a re vi de nc e t o the co n trary, w arran tth e i m p o si t i o n o f san ct i o n s. A s f or “ the fr i vo l ou s nature of [ H ud son’ s] cl ai m , ” the di stri ctcourtsa i d that i t“ w a s abl e t o m a ke c l e a rf i ndi ngs of

f a c t ” f r om the e vi de nc e pr oduc e d thr ough d isco v er y, an d th at se v er al o f th e a rg u m en ts H u d so n m ad e in re sp o n se to IC N ’s m ot i on f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt“ de f[ i e d] a ny s e m bl a nc e of l ogi c . ” S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d , w ith r e s p e c t to H u d s o n ’s E R I S A c la im , th a t th e e v id e n c e d id n o t s u p p o r t th e c la im th a t A u e rk n e w o f H u d s o n ’s r e q u e s t f

o rlo n g - te rm d is ab ility b e n e f i t s i n f o rma t i o n . Th e e v i d e n c e “ d i s t i n c t l y d e mo n s tr a t e [ d ] ” th a tRo s e n b l u m,

“ the on l y per son w i th w ho m H ud son spo ke abou thi s benef i t s, di d n otadvi se A uer of H uds on’ s r e que s t . ” N orw a s H uds on w a rr a nt e d i n hi s “ a tt e m pt s t o i nf e rf r om W al l ac e’ s purpo rt ed kn ow l edge of H ud son’ s r equestfor benefi t s i nform at i on that A uer a l so w as aw ar e of H ud son’ s r equest . ” A s f or H ud son’ s F C R A cl ai m , the di stri ctcourtfoun d thatH ud son h ad prod uced “ no evi dence” thathi s depre ss i on “ subst ant i al l y l i m i t ed hi s l i fe a c t i vi t i e s , ” w hi c h w a s ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor thi s c l a i m tha the i s di s abl e d w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e F C R A . N o r , th e c o u r t f o u n d , c o u ld H u d s o n s a v e h is F C R A c la im16

by ar gu i ng thatA uer di sc harged hi m because of aperc ei ved d i sabi l i ty; the “ cl ea r e v id e n c e ” s h o w e d “th a t A u e rte rm in a te d H u d s o n b e c a u s e o f d is s a tis f a c tio n w ith v ar io u s a sp ec ts o f H u d so n ’s p er fo rm an ce ,” ra th erth an b ec au se o f “H u d so n ’s adm i ss i on [t o A uer] thathe suff er ed fr om depres si on . ” T he di stri ctcourt concl ud ed thatal tho ug h “ H ud son’ s c l ai m s w er e quest i on abl e a tbestw hen they w ere m ad e, ” an d th en “ d i sco v ery rev eal ed (o r sh o u l d h av e rev eal ed ) an al m o st com pl et e l ac k o f f

ac tual supp ortfor hi s c l ai m s, H ud son and hi s c ou nsel n e v e r th e le s s p r e s s e d o n , a tte m p tin g to c r e a te a r g u m e n t to s u p p o r t th e iru n te n ab le p o s itio n .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o im p o s e d § 1 9 2 7 s a n c tio n s f o rH u d s o n ’s ap p e a l to th i s C o u rt , n o t i n g th ath e “ rai sed v i rtu al l y th e sam e arg u m en tb efo re [u s] as th o se p r e s e n te d to [ th e d is tr ic t c o u r t].” T c hi vi dj i a n m ove d f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on be c a us e the c our tappe a r e d t o ha ve ov er l oo ked h i s bri ef

and con si dere d o nl y B erm an’ s bri ef s. T he di stri ctcourt gr a nt e d the m ot i on. O n J ul y 31, 2006, thi s C our ti s s ue d i t s opi ni on i n A m l ong & A m lo n g , P .A . v . D e n n y ’s , I n c ., 4 5 7 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , a s a m e n d e d O c t. 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , in w h ic h w e n o te d th a t a n a tto rn e y u n d e rth e th r e a t o f § 1 9 2 7 s a n c tio n s is ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hea ri ng . S ee i d. at11 93 . S ho rt l y there af t er , bo th B erm an a nd T c hi vi dj i a n a s ke d f ors uc h a he a r i ng. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the ap p lic a tio n . A tthe O ct ob er5, 20 06 , hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtno t ed thatthe heari ng w as b e in g h e ld , a n dth e m o tio n f o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n h a d b e e n g r a n te d , in p a r t in o r d e rto17

c o n s id e rw h e th e rits o r ig in a l o r d e rg r a n tin g s a n c tio n s w a s in c o rr e c t u n d e rC ir c u it p r e c e d e n t f

o u n d in C o r d o b a v . D illa r d ’s , I n c ., 4 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 6 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A f t e rthe he a r i ng, the c our tc onc l ude d tha ti tha d “ no opt i on butt o va c a t e ” i t s pr i or o r d e r , a n d r e f

u s e d to a w a r d § 1 9 2 7 f

e e s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s a id th a t a lth o u g h it cont i nu ed t o b el i eve thatH ud son’ s c as e had been fri vo l ou s, i tre ad C ordo ba, w hi ch i nv ol ved a si m i l arfa ctpatt ern, as prec l ud i ng § 1 92 7 fee s i n thi s c as e. T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha tothe rtha n a ty pogr aphi c a l e rr ori n i t s pr i or order, he had “ no re as on t o chang e m y f i nd i ng s, per s e. I s t i l l thi nk thi s c as e w as f r i vol ous . I don’ tthi nk tha tthe r e w a s e ve ra ny c onne c t i on be tw e e n the r e que s tf or di sabi l i ty i nform at i on and the t erm i nat i on by the deci si on m aker . ” T r. 52 : 2-6. In a d d itio n , th e c o u r t n o te d , c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u g g e s te d “th e r e is r e a s o n to b e lie v e ” th a t th e f

e d e r a l c a s e w a s b r o u g h t in r e ta lia tio n f o rI C N ’s s u in g H u d s o n in st at e c ou rt , gi vi ng atl ea stthe appearance that“ fe dera l proces s w as bei ng used as l ever age a s opp osed t o b ei ng used on the m er i t s. ” I n p art i cul ar , the t em po ra l p ro x i m i ty o f th e fi l i n g o f th e tw o cases an d H u d so n ’ s o ffer t o sett l e th e fed eral case i n exchang e f

or IC N drop pi ng the st at e c as e w er e “ cause f or concern. ” H ow ever , the courtexpres sl y f

ou nd thati thad “ no basi s t o g eti nt o the m i nd s of the part i es in v o lv e d ,” a n d th e r e f

o r e “c a n ’t m a k e a f

in d in g th a t it’s s o .” I d . 5 2 :1 4 - 1 7 . M o re o v er , th e d istrict co u rt sa idth at ith ad o n ly re ce n tl y lea rn ed th at T ch iv id ji an ’s f irm h a d ta k e n th e f

e d e r a l c a s e o n a c o n tin g e n c y f e e b a s is , w h ic h it f

o u n d “te n d s to w ei gh agai nst ” afi nd i ng thatthe l aw ye rs brou gh tthe ca se kn ow i ng thati tw as18

fr i vo l ou s a nd un l i kel y t o succe ed. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed an aw ar d of s a nc t i ons unde r§ 1927. A s f o r th e f ee s in cu rr ed p u rs u an t t o H u d so n ’s ap p ea l o f th e d istrict co u rt’s grantof sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of IC N , the di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thati tw as not“ i n a pos i t i on t o e i the rl e ga l l y orf a c tua l l y . . . de t e rm i ne s a nc t i ons f r om appe a l . ” I d. 51: 16- 18. T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha tde t e rm i ni ng w he the rs a nc t i ons a r e j us t i f i e d f orbr i ngi ng a f

r i vol ous appe a l i s the j ob of the appe l l a t e c our t , notof the di s tr i c tc our t . T he di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a n or de rt o tha te f f e c t , c i t i ng the r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n o p e n c o u r td u r i n g th e h e a r i n g , a n dn o t i n g th a ti t s d e c i s i o n c a me “p a r tic u la r ly in lig h t o f

th e d e c is io n in C o r d o b a .” I C N appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i na l or de r . I t s appe a l i s l i m i t e d t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef

usal t o ass es s a tt orneys ’ fe es agai nstH ud son’ s a tt orneys un der § 1927. II . W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e ru n d e r§ 1 9 2 7 f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . C o r d o b a , 4 1 9 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 9 . “A n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n o c c u r s if

th e ju d g e f

a ils to appl y the pr ope rl e ga l s t a nda r d ort o f ol l ow pr ope rpr oc e dur e s i n m a ki ng the det erm i nat i on , or base s a n aw ar d u po n fi nd i ng s of f ac tthatar e c l ea rl y e rr on eous. ” Id . at 1 1 8 0 (in tern al q u o tati o n s o m itted ). IC N d o es n o t d isp u te th e d istrict co u rt’s fi nd i ng s of f

ac t . Inst ea d, i tar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtm ade al egal error,19

co n st i tu t i n g ab u se o f d i scret i o n , i n i n t erp ret i n g C o rd o b a as h av i n g creat ed a p er se b a rto § 1 9 2 7 s a n c tio n s in c e r ta in c a te g o r ie s o f c a s e s . S e e A p p . B r . a t 2 1 . A . S an ct i o n s fo r C o n d u ctR el at ed t o th e D i stri ctC o u rtP ro ceed i n g s S ect i o n 1 9 2 7 p ro v i d es, i n p ert i n en tp art , th at“ [a] n y att o rn ey . . . w h o so m ul t i pl i e s the pr oc e e di ngs i n a ny c a s e unr e a s onabl y a nd ve xa t i ous l y m a y be r e qui r e d by the c our tt o s a t i s f y pe r s ona l l y the e xc e s s c os t s , e xpe ns e s , a nd a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s r e a s o n ab ly in c u rr e d b e c a u s e o f s u c h c o n d u c t.” U n d e rth e p la in l a ngua ge of

the s t a tut e , the n, i n or de rf ora c our tt o j us t i f

y s a nc t i ons , i tm us tf

i nd th atth ree co n d i t i o n s ap p l y: F i rst , th e att o rn ey m u sten g ag e i n “ u n reaso n ab l e an d v ex at i o u s” c onduc t . S e c ond, tha t“ unr e a s onabl e a nd ve xa t i o u s” c onduc tm us tbe c onduc tth at “ m ul t i pl i e s the pr oc e e di ngs . ” F i na l l y , the dol l a ra m ount o f th e san ct i o n m u stb ear a finan ci al n ex u s t o th e ex cess p ro ceed i n g s, i . e . , the s a nc t i on m a y note xc e e d the “ c os t s , e xpe ns e s , a nd a tt orne ys’ f e e s r e a s o n ab ly in c u rr e d b e c a u s e o f s u c h c o n d u c t.” P e t e r s o n v . B MI R e f

r a c t o r i e s , 1 2 4 F . 3 d 1 3 8 6 , 1 3 9 6 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . An atto rn ey ’s co n d u ct m ee ts th e f irst o f th es e c o n d it io n s “o n ly w h en th e a tt o rn ey ’s c onduc ti s s o e gr e gi ous tha ti ti s t a nt a m ountt o ba d f a i th. ” A m l ong & A m l ong, 457 F .3 d at 1 1 9 0 (in tern al q u o tati o n m ar k s a n d citati o n o m itted ). “[A ]n atto rn ey ’s c onduc tm us tbe pa r t i c ul a r l y e gr e gi ous t o w a rr a ntthe i m pos i t i on of s a nc t i ons - - the a tto rn e y m u s t k n o w in g ly o rr e c k le s s ly p u r s u e a f r iv o lo u s c la im . . . .” I d . a t 1 1 9 3 .

“ [N ] egl i gentcond uct , st andi ng al on e, w i l l no tsupp orta f i nd i ng of bad fai th u nd er § 1 92 7 . . . . F or sa nct i on s und erse ct i on 19 27 t o b e app ropri at e, som ethi ng m ore20

tha n a l a c k of

m e r i ti s r e qui r e d. ” I d. a t1193 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . W hi l e a n att orney’ s c on du ctm ustbe t ant am ou ntt o b ad fa i th, “ for purpo se s of § 1927, ba d f

a i th turns noton the a tt orne y ’ s s ubj e c t i ve i nt e nt , buton the att o rn ey’ s o b

j ect i v e co n d u ct . ” Id . at1 1 9 0 . W h ati s cru ci al i s w h eth er, reg ard l ess of the a tt orne y ’ s s ubj e c t i ve i nt e nt i ons , the c onduc tw a s unr e a s onabl e a nd ve xa t i ous w he n m e a s ur e d a ga i ns ta n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d. I d. “ T ha ti s nott o s a y the att orney’ s purpo se or i nt enti s i rr el evant . A l tho ug h the att orney’ s obj ec t i ve cond uct i s the focus of the anal ys i s, the att orney’ s s ubj ec t i ve st at e of m i nd i s f re qu ent l y a n i m por t a ntpi e c e of

the c a l c ul us , be c a us e a gi ve n a c ti s m or e l i ke l y t o f a l l out s i de th e b o u n d s o f a cc ep tab le co n d u ct an d th er ef o re b e ‘u n re as o n ab l[e] an d v ex atio u s[ ]’ if it is d o n e w ith a m a lic io u s p u rp o s e o rin te n t.” I d . a t 1 1 9 2 . IC N arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rtco m m i tt ed l eg al erro r co n st i tu t i n g an ab u se of di s c r e t i on by r e a di ng C or doba a s s e tt i ng a“ pe rs e ba r ” a ga i ns t§ 1927 s a nc t i ons in a w r o n g f

u l d is c h a r g e c a s e w h e n e v e ra n e m p lo y e r ’s a c tu a l k n o w le d g e is di s put e d. W e do notr e a d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s t a t e m e nt s on the r e c or d a tthe c onc l us i on of

the e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng a s i nt e rpr e t i ng C or doba i n thi s w a y , a l though w e a gr e e w i th I C N tha ts uc h a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of C or doba ora ny of

our§ 1927 ca se s w ou l d b e e rr on eous. A s w e r ei t er at ed i n C ordo ba i t se l f a nd have had oc c a s i on t o s tr e s s be f

or e , “ ‘ [ d] e t e rm i na t i ons r e ga r di ng f r i vol i ty a r e t o be m a de on a c a s e - by - c a s e ba s i s . ’ ” C or doba , 419 F . 3d a t1177 ( quot i ng S ul l i va n v. S c h. B d. of21

P in e lla s C o u n ty , 7 7 3 F .2 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . B u t, e v e n if th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d r e a d C o r d o b aa s im p o s in g a p e rs e ru le , w e w o u ld s till af fi rm because und erthe stri ki ng l y s i m i l arfa ct s of C ordo ba, the att orney c on du ct he r e w a s not“ s o e gr e gi ous tha ti ti s t a nt a m ountt o ba d f a i th. ” A m l ong & A m l ong, 4 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 . In thatca se , C ordo ba sued her former emp l oyer , the departm entst ore D i l l a r d’ s , f

orw r ongf

ul t e rm i na t i on on the ba s i s of di s abi l i ty , i n vi ol a t i on of the A D A and the F C R A . 41 9 F . 3d at11 72 . A ft erthe di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm enti n favor of D i l l ar d’ s on al l coun t s a nd w e a ff i rm ed i n an u np ub l i shed o p i n i o n , D i l l ard ’ s so u g h tatt o rn eys’ fees ag ai n stb o th C o rd o b a an d h er att o rn ey, D e m p s e y , u n d e r , in te ra lia , § 1 9 2 7 . I d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th e m o tio n . H ow e ve r , C or doba a nd D e m ps e y appe a l e d, a nd w e r e ve r s e d. I d. C or doba w a s a s a l e s a s s oc i a t e a tD i l l a r d’ s , w he r e s he w a s one of about250 em pl oyee s. Id. C ordo ba’ s di re ctsupervi sor w as S t osse l , the A re a S al es M anager ( A S M ) i n the a r e a of

the s t or e w he r e s he w orke d. I d. S t os s e l ’ s s upe rvi s or , i n turn, w a s G r o o . I d . O n e d a y in A u g u s t 1 9 9 8 , C o r d o b ac a m e to w o rk w e a r in g a “p la in ly vi si bl e” heartm on i t or t o ai d h erdo ct or i n d i agno si ng som e hea rti ss ues s he had b e e n e x p e r ie n c in g . A t le a s t o n e c o - w o rk e rn o tic e d it a n d d is c u s s e d it w ith C or doba . I d. a t1173. I n M a y 1999, C or doba ha d t o l e a ve w ork t o go t o the h o s p ita l b e c a u s e s h e h a d a h e a r t e p is o d e . I d . I n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 0 , s h e a g a in h a d to l e a v e w o rk f

o rth e h o s p i t a l b e c a u s e s h e h a d a n o th e re p i s o d e . I d . A tth i s t i me22

C ordo ba w as fi nal l y di agno se d as s uffe ri ng fr om a c on geni t al heartdi sorderw hi ch c a us e d he rt o ha ve s por a di c e pi s ode s of a n e rr a t i c he a r tbe a t , a nd f orw hi c h s he t ook m edi ca t i on thatcaused addi t i on al si de ef fe ct s. Id. C ordo ba di sc usse d h er cond i t i on “ w i th sever al of her c ol l ea gu es on a num ber of occa si on s. ” I d. In M ar ch 20 00 , her doct or re com m ended surgery, w hi ch C ordo ba sc hedu l ed for that s um m e r . I d. a t1173- 74. C ordo ba and S t osse l di sc usse d C ordo ba’ s c on di t i on on atl ea sta f ew occa si on s. Id. at11 74 . S t osse l kn ew of C ordo ba’ s di agno si s, thatshe had s c h e d u le d s u r g e ry , a n d th a t s h e w o u ld n e e d a c o u p le o f w e e k s o f

f to r e c u p e r a te . I d. A tl e a s tonc e , S t os s e l not i c e d C or doba s i tt i ng dow n on the j ob a nd C or doba expl ai ned thatshe w as havi ng heartpal pi t at i on s; C ordo ba al so re po rt ed t o S t osse l a n y tim e s h e n e e d e d to le a v e w o rk b e c a u s e o f a n e p is o d e . I d . I n M a r c h o rA p r il 2000, C or doba a s ke d S t os s e l f ora r e duc t i on i n hour s a nd r e que s t e d tha ts he not h a v e to w o rk n ig h ts b e c a u s e h e rm e d ic a tio n c a u s e d h e rf a tig u e . S to s s e l s a id it w oul d t a ke a w hi l e t o f

ul f i l l thos e r e que s t s be c a us e doi ng s o w oul d r e qui r e hi r i ng a n o th e re m p lo y e e . D illa r d ’s c o m p lie d in ab o u t o n e m o n th . I d . G r o o , o n th e o th e rh a n d , h a d “v e ry little c o n ta c t w ith C o r d o b a ” a n d w o u ld l at ert es t i fythatshe had “ no i nk l i ng ” thatC ordo ba had any heal th p robl em s. Id. In O c t obe r1998, G r oo a nd C or dobam e tabouts om e une xc us e d abs e nc e s a nd ta r d in e s s . C o r d o b a e x p la in e d to G r o o th a t s h e “h a d b e e n s ic k a n d . . . w a s g o in g to a l otof doc t or s ’ appoi ntm e nt s a nd ge tt i ng al otof t e s t i ng done , ” a nd tha tthe23

doc t or s ha d noty e tde t e rm i ne d w ha tw a s w r ong w i th he r . I d. O n Jun e 17, 20 00 , a c ust om eras ked C ordo ba t o return a garm ent . Id. at 11 72 . C ordo ba det erm i ned thatshe nee ded the approv al of an A S M before a c c e pt i ng the r e turn, a nd be c a us e S t os s e l w a s una va i l abl e , s he c ont a c t e d S e bbe n, the A S M of another s t ore a re a. S ebben and C ordo ba apparent l y had a heat ed exchange aft erw hi ch S ebben asked C ordo ba w hether s he l i ked w orki ng at D i l l a r d’ s . C or doba s a i d tha ts he ha t e d D i l l a r d’ s butc ont i nue d w orki ng the r e f or the i ns ur a nc e be ne f

i t s , w hi c h s he de pe nde d on. I d. a t1172- 73. S e bbe n r e l a t e d the in c id e n t to S to s s e l tw o d a y s la te r , a n d S to s s e n , in tu rn , r e la te d th e s to ry to G r o o . I d. a t1173. G r oo the n a s ke d S t os s e l a nd C or doba t o he rof f i c e t o di s c us s the m att er . C ordo ba di d n otapol og i ze for the re m ark, bu tdi d exp l ai n thatshe w as be i ng s a r c a s t i c i n the f

a c e of w ha ts he pe r c e i ve d t o be S e bbe n’ s ve rba l a tt a c k on her. G roo t ol d C ordo ba thati f s he di d n otl i ke her j ob , she c ou l d n o l on ger w ork at D i l l ar d’ s. C ordo ba sa ys she tri ed t o p er suade G roo t o rec on si der, bu tG roo h anded he rhe rt e rm i na t i on pape r s . I d. In S ept em ber 200 1, C ordo ba sued D i l l ar d’ s, al l egi ng thatshe had been t erm i nat ed because of her heartcond i t i on . Id. at11 74 . T he evi dence s ho w ed that C or doba ’ s c ondi t i on w a s notr e c or de d a ny w he r e i n he rpe r s onne l f i l e s ; G r oo a nd S to s s e l te s tif

ie d th a t th e y h a d n e v e rd is c u s s e dh e rc o n d itio n ; a n d G r o o w a s th e s o le deci si on -m aker . Id. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entt o D i l l ar d’ s. It f ound tha tthe r e w a s a que s t i on of f a c ta s t o w he the rC or doba w a s di s abl e d, but24

gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e ntbe c a us e i tf ound tha tC or doba c oul d nots how tha tthe sol e dec i si on -m aker , G roo, w as aw ar e of heral l eged di sabi l i ty. Id. T he di stri ct courtal so “ no t e[ d] w i th con ce rn that , qu i t e apartfr om the qu es t i on of w hat D ef endantkn ew , there i s s er i ou s r ea son t o d ou bteven thatP l ai nt i ff consi dere d hers el f t o b e di sabl ed atany t i m e duri ng her t enure atD i l l ar d’ s. ” I d. at11 75 . In f a c t , i n he rappl i c a t i on f

orune m pl oy m e ntbe ne f i t s , s he s t a t e d tha ts he w a s not di sabl ed. Id. C ordo ba had m ade a n al t ernat i ve ar gu m entthatD i l l ar d’ s had

“ construct i ve kn ow l edge” of her di sabi l i ty, w hi ch the di stri ctcourtre j ec t ed as m ak i n g n o sen se w i th o u tG ro o fi rsth av i n g actu al k n o w l ed g e. Id . F i n al l y, C or doba a r gue d tha tS t os s e l ’ s a c tua l know l e dge c r e a t e d i ns t i tut i ona l l i abi l i ty f or D i l l a r d’ s . I d. O n appe a l , w e a f f i rm e d, r e j e c t i ng e a c h of

C or doba ’ s the or i e s of l i abi l i ty . I d. T he di stri ctcourtas se ss ed fe es , i nt eral i a, agai nstC ordo ba’ s c ou nsel un der § 19 27 , fi nd i ng thatD em psey ’ s c on du ctw as “ t ant am ou ntt o b ad fa i th, ” a s r equi re d by ou r c as e l aw construi ng the st atut e. Id. at11 77 -78. S peci fi ca l l y, the tri al court f ound tha ta tt orne y D e m ps e y ha d a c t e d i n “ r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d” of a “ s e r i ous de f e c t ” i n C or doba ’ s c a s e : G r oo’ s l a c k of know l e dge of

he ra l l e ge d di s abi l i ty . I d. a t1178. T he c our tde t e rm i ne d tha tC or doba ’ s a c tua l know l e dge the ory ha d no basi s i n fac t , w hi l e herconstruct i ve kn ow l edge theory had no basi s i n l aw , and that a ts om e poi nt , c ouns e l obvi ous l y gr a s pe d the s e de f e c t s , y e ti ns t e a d of

r e tr e a t i ng f r om a f r i vol ous s ui tthr ough vol unt a ry di s m i s s a l ors e tt l e m e nt , he pus he d on25

thr ough s um m a ry j udgm e nt . I d. R evi ew i ng for a n abu se of di sc re t i on , w e r ever se d the sa nct i on s order . Id. at 1172, 1179. W e f

ound tha tC or doba ha d r a i s e d thr e e the or i e s of l i abi l i ty , tw o of w hi c h a r e r e l e va nthe r e . I d. a t1180. W e a gr e e d tha tthe e vi de nc e “ f e l l f a rs hor tof c r e a tin g a g e n u in e is s u e ” a s to th e f ir s t th e o ry - - th a t G r o o h a d a c tu a l k n o w le d g e . G r o o a n d C o r d o b a d is c u s s e d h e rm e d ic a l is s u e o n ly o n c e , m o r e th a n a y e a rp r io rto the t e rm i na t i on, w he n G r oo a s ke d aboutune xc us e d abs e nc e s . I d. M or e ove r , the cont entof thi s one conv er sa t i on i t se l f, w e s ai d, “ coul d n othave pu tG roo o n n ot i ce th a t C o r d o b a w a s d is ab le d ” ; C o r d o b am e r e ly m e n tio n e d a n u n d ia g n o s e d h e a lth i ssu e cau si n g h er l o t s o f p ro b l em s. Id . Y etw h i l e w e fo u n d th atC o rd o b a’ s case w as “ pu re conj ec ture” and “ exce edi ng l y w ea k o n thi s poi nt , i tw as no tso w ea k as to m a k e it f

r iv o lo u s f

o rh e rto a r g u e th a t G r o o ’s k n o w le d g e o f h e rd is ab ility p resen t ed a tri ab l e i ssu e o f fact , ” b ecau se “ th e co n t ex to f h er d i sm i ssal atl east m a [ d e ] h e rs p e c u l a t i o n ” n o te n t i r e l y “ u n r e a s o n ab l e . ” I d . a t1 1 8 1 . S p e c i f i c a l l y , we no t ed, S t osse l had b ee n g ener al l y a w ar e of C ordo ba’ s c on di t i on for s om e t i m e, as w e r e s e ve r a l othe re m pl oy e e s , s o tha t“ a l though C or doba c oul d ul t i m a t e l y do no m or e tha n s pe c ul a t e tha tG r oo w a s a w a r e of he rc ondi t i on, thi s s pe c ul a t i on w a s not s o unr e a s onabl e tha ti tc a n be t e rm e d f r i vol ous , ” a nd “ de c i s i ve f a c t s m a y not e m e r g e u n til d is c o v e ry o rtr ia l.” I d . a t 1 1 8 1 - 8 2 . W e then turned t o C ordo ba’ s s ec on d theory of l i abi l i ty - - thatS t osse l had a c tua l know l e dge a nd pa r t i c i pa t e d a tl e a s tt o s om e e xt e nti n the t e rm i na t i on26

deci si on . A gai n, w hi l e C ordo ba coul d o nl y s pecul at e thatS t osse l , w i th h erac tual know l e dge , w a s i nvol ve d i n the t e rm i na t i on de c i s i on, a nd a l though S t os s e l a nd G r o o b o th d e n ie d th a t th is w a s th e c a s e , w e h e ld th a t it w a s n o t “e n tir e ly unr e a s onabl e f

orC or doba t o hope tha tthe c our tw oul d pe rm i the rc a s e t o go t o a j ury on thi s theory. ” A ft eral l , “ on l y G roo’ s a nd S t osse l ’ s ow n t es t i m on y i nd i ca t ed th a t S to s s e l n e ith e rc o n v e y e d th is in f o rm a tio n to G r o o n o ra c tu a lly p a r tic ip a te d in the deci si on . ” W e a l s o m a de the ge ne r a l obs e rva t i on tha tC or doba w a s “ ac om pe t e nt e m pl oy e e ” w hos e w ork pe r f orm a nc e D i l l a r d’ s ha d de s c r i be d a s r a ngi ng f r om

“ a ve r a ge ” t o “ good, ” a nd tha tS e bbe n he r s e l f w a s s urpr i s e d t o l e a rn tha tC or doba had b ee n fi re d as are sul tof the i nci dent . Id. at11 86 . In short , al tho ug h w e a gree d th at “C o rd o b a’s a ll eg atio n s r eg ar d in g G ro o ’s k n o w led g e a n d S to ss el’s i n v o l v e m e n tl a c k e d s u p p o r ts u f f i c i e n tt o p e rm i ta r e a s o n ab l e j u ry i n f e r e n c e , ” we hel d thatthey w er e not“ so w i tho utci rc um st ant i al foun dat i on as t o h ave been f r i vol ous . ” I d. a t1187. S i m i l a r l y , i n thi s c a s e , pr e c i ous l i tt l e e vi de nc e a l l ow e d a n i nf e r e nc e tha tthe sol e dec i si on -m akerkn ew of the al l eged di sabi l i ty, m uch l es s thatA uer f i re d H ud son b ec ause of thatdi sabi l i ty. H ud son h ad on l y one conv er sa t i on w i th A uer ab o u t h is h e a lth is s u e s ( a d m itte d ly o n ly ab o u t n in e w e e k s p r io rto th e te rm in a tio n ) . H uds on i ni t i a t e d thi s c onve r s a t i on i n or de rt o e xpl a i n hi s abs e nc e s f r om w ork, a nd br i e f l y m e nt i one d tha the w a s s e e i ng ac ouns e l orf orde pr e s s i on. H uds on di d not27

i n d i cat e th ath e w o u l d n eed an y acco m m o d at i o n s fo r h i s d ep ressi o n o r o th erw i se s u g g e s t th a t h is d e p r e s s io n r o s e to th e le v e l o f a d is ab ility . M oreover, al tho ug h H ud son, l i ke C ordo ba, coul d o nl y “ spec ul at e” that R o sen b l u m o r W al l ace h ad t o l d A u er ab o u th i s i n su ran ce i n q u i ri es, IC N w as a m uch sm al l eroffi ce than D i l l ar d’ s, and m uch o f R osenbl um ’ s j ob w as t o k ee p A ue rappr i s e d of

s uc h thi ngs , s o tha tthi s a s s um pt i on, w hi l e ul t i m a t e l y unpr ove n, w as no tal t og ether unreas on abl e, es peci al l y w here another f orm erIC N em pl oyee e xpr e s s l y t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe I C N of

f i c e m a na ge r“ w oul d ha ve t ol d” A ue rabout H u d s o n ’s in q u iry r e g a r d in g h is lo n g - te rm d is ab ility b e n e f its . F i na l l y , i n the i ns t a ntc a s e , a l though A ue rha d f orm onths c r i t i c i z e d H uds on fo r v ari o u s p erfo rm an ce i ssu es, A u er al w ays assu red H u d so n th ath e w as a val uabl e m em ber of the t ea m w ho m he w ant ed t o ret ai n. M oreover, H ud son h ad re ce i ved regul arannu al ra i se s throu gh ou thi s t enure atIC N , and l es s than three m onths be f

or e A ue rt e rm i na t e d hi m , A ue rappoi nt e d H uds on t o a n e xe c ut i ve co m m ittee to h elp ru n IC N in A u er ’s ab se n ce . T h e tu rn in g p o in t i n A u er ’s deci si on t o ret ai n H ud son app ar ent l y c am e w hen A uer l ea rned thatH ud son h ad i nstruct ed W hi tbeck t o l i e t o A uer. H ud son, ho w ever , se em i ng l y di d n otre al i ze th a t th e lie h a d b e e n u n c o v e r e d . A s a r e s u lt, it m a y h a v e r e a s o n ab ly ap p e a r e d to Hu d s o n th a th i s t e rm i n a t i o n wa s i n s t e a d m o t i v a t e d b y e i th e ro rb o th o f two p r o te c te d a c tiv itie s u n d e r ta k e n in v e ry c lo s e p r o x im ity to h is te rm in a tio n : ( 1 ) h is di s c l os ur e t o A ue rtha the w a s be i ng tr e a t e d f orde pr e s s i on ( s om e ni ne w e e ks pr i or28

t o h i s t erm i nat i on ); and (2) hi s r equestconcerni ng l on g-t erm di sabi l i ty ( a m er e e ig h t d a y s p r io rto h is te rm in a tio n ) . S e e B ru n g a r t v . B e llS o u th T e le c o m m s ., I n c ., 23 1 F . 3d 79 1, 79 9 (11 th C i r. 20 00 ) ( “ T he general rul e i s thatcl ose t em po ra l pr oxi m i ty be tw e e n the e m pl oy e e ’ s pr ot e c t e d c onduc ta nd the a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt ac t i on i s s uffi ci entci rc um st ant i al evi dence t o cre at e agenu i ne i ss ue of m at er i al f a c tof a c a us a l c onne c t i on. ” ) . I n s hor t , w hi l e H uds on’ s c a s e w a s w e a k, i tw a s not “so w ith o u t circu m stan ti al fo u n d atio n ” a s to re n d eritfr iv o lo u s u n d erC o rd o b a’s ve ry s i m i l a rf

a c tpa tt e rn. A l t ernat i vel y, H ud son’ s c as e w ou l d h ave been fr i vo l ou s i f i thad b ee n b r o u g h t, a s I C N c la im s , s o le ly to h a r a s s I C N in r e ta lia tio n f o rI C N ’s s ta te c o u r t s u it agai nstH ud son. H ow ever , i n i t s f i nal order denyi ng sa nct i on s, the di stri ctcourt spec i fi ca l l y s t at ed thati tcoul d n ot(a nd di d n ot ) f i nd as a m att erof fa ctthat H u d so n o r h i s att o rn eys h ad b een m o t i v at ed b y ret al i at i o n t o an y ex t en t , m u ch l ess tha tr e t a l i a t i on c ons t i tut e d the s ol e purpos e f orbr i ngi ng the l a w s ui t , not i ng tha tthe c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e p o in te d in b o th d ir e c tio n s . I n s u m , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e th o r o u g h f in d in g s o f

f a c t a n d u ltim a te ly concl ud ed thattho se fa ct s a re suff i ci ent l y c l ose t o C ordo ba’ s a s t o p re cl ud e a n a w a r d of § 1927 s a nc t i ons a ga i ns tH uds on’ s a tt orne y s . O n thi s r e c or d, w e c a n f i nd n o ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n o n th e p a r t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. B . S a nc t i ons f

orC onduc tR e l a t e d t o the A ppe l l a t e P r oc e e di ngs O n D e c e m be r2, 2005, H uds on t i m e l y f i l e d a N ot i c e of

A ppe a l f r om theTh atr

u l ep ro v i d e s : “ Any p arty wh o i s o r m a y b ee l i g ib l ef

o r att o r n ey’ s f e e s o na p p e alm ay, 3 within the time for filingan application provided by this rule, file a motion to transfer consideration of attorney ’s fe es on appe al to the district court . . . from which the appe al was taken.” 29 di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e ntt o I C N . O n D e c e m be r7, I C N f i l e d a m ot i on i n the di s tr i c tc our ta s ki ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha ta tt orne y s ’ f e e s be a s s e s s e d a ga i ns ta tt orne y T c hi vi dj i a n pur s ua ntt o § 1927. O n J a nua ry 11, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d I C N ’ s m ot i on w i thoutpr e j udi c e , not i ng tha tI C N c oul d br i ng th e m o tio n a g a in a t th e c o n c lu s io n o f H u d s o n ’s ap p e a l. O n A p ril 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , th is C o u rt issu ed it s o p in io n af firm in g th e d istrict co u rt’s grantof sum m ary j ud gm entfor I C N , agre ei ng thatH ud son’ s c as e w as “ l i tt l e m ore th a n f r i v o l o u s , ” a n dw e t a x e d c o s t s o n ap p e a l a g a i n s tH u d s o n . O n M a y 1 6 , I CN t i m el y f i l ed a m ot i on w i th thi s C ou rt , pu rs uantt o E l eventh C i rc ui tR ul e 39-2(d), 3 t o tra nsfe r c on si dera t i on of the i ss ue of appel l at e a tt orneys ’ fe es t o the di stri ct c o u r t. T h e m o tio n r e c ite s th a t b o th th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d th is C o u r t h a d , in r e s pe c t i ve l y gr a nt i ng a nd r e vi e w i ng the or de rof s um m a ryj udgm e nti n f a vorof I C N , a gr e e d tha tH uds on’ s c a s e w a s “ l i tt l e m or e tha n f r i vol ous . ” I C N ’ s m ot i on a l s o i ndi c a t e d tha ti tpl a nne d “ t o s e e k a n a w a r d of a tt orne y s ’ f

e e s f orthe appe a l on the sa m e s t atut ory groun ds i n w hi ch i tw i l l re new i t s m ot i on w i th the D i stri ctC ou rt u p o n r e m a n d .” H o w e v e r , I C N d id n o t in d ic a te w h a t th o s e s ta tu to ry g r o u n d s w e r e . O n J u n e 1 6 , I CN r e f

i l e d i t s mo t i o n f

o ra tt o rn e y s ’ f

e e s i n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , th i s t i me a s ki ng tha t§ 1927 f

e e s be a s s e s s e d a ga i ns tnotonl y T c hi vi dj i a n, buta l s o B e rm a n, a s H uds on’ s appe l l a t e c ouns e l . O n J ul y 5, w e gr a nt e d I C N ’ s R ul e 39- 2( d) m ot i onRule 38 provides: “I f a c ourt of appe als deter mines that an appe al is frivolous, it may , after a 4 separately filed motion or notice from the court a nd rea sonable opportunity to respond, aw ard just damag es and sing le or double c osts to the appellee.” 30 to tr a n s f e rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

ap p e lla te a tto rn e y s ’ f

e e s to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. I n its f ir s t s a n c tio n s o r d e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a w a r d e d § 1 9 2 7 ap p e lla te att orneys ’ fe es t o IC N . O n rec on si dera t i on , ho w ever , the courtst at ed thati tw as not“ i n a pos i t i on t o e i the rl e ga l l y orf a c tua l l y . . . de t e rm i ne s a nc t i ons f r om appeal , ” a nd vaca t ed thatpo rt i on of i t s pri or order. IC N no w as ks us t o h ol d that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rap p e lla te a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s u n d e r§ 1 9 2 7 . W e c a nnotdo s o. I f I C N ha d w i s he d t o s e e k f e e s f ora f r i vol ous appe a l , i tw a s r e qui r e d t o do s o “n o la te rth a n th e f

ilin g o f [ its ] b r ie f

,” E le v e n th C ir c u it R u le 3 8 - 1 , p u r s u a n t to F ed eral R u l e o f A p p el l at e P ro ced u re 3 8 : F ri v o l o u s A p p eal -- D am ag es an d C o st s. 4 I C N f a i l e d t o do s o. R ul e 39- 2( a ) e xpr e s s l y f orbi ds l i t i ga nt s f

r om s e e ki ng appel l at e a tt orneys ’ fe es on grou nd s of f ri vo l ou snes s und erR ul e 39: “ F or pu rposes of thi s rul e , the t e rm ‘ a tt orne y ’ s f e e s ’ i nc l ude s f

e e s a nd e xpe ns e s a uthor i z e d by st atut e, bu texcl ud es dam ages and cost s s ou gh tpu rs uantt o F R A P 38 . . . . ” T here fore , w hi l e w e tra nsfe rr ed consi dera t i on of “ att orneys ’ fe es ” t o the di stri ct court , ou r ordercoul d n othave appl i ed t o app el l at e a tt orneys ’ fe es soug htun der § 19 27 for f

ri vo l ou s l aw sui t s - - the on l y ki nd of fe es ati ss ue i n thi s app ea l . N or w as IC N perm i tt ed t o ask the di stri ctcourt , i n the fi rs ti nst ance , t o ass es s app el l at e f ee s u n d e r§ 1 9 2 7 .31

A tal l ev en t s, ev en i f w e h ad g i v en th e d i stri ctco u rtth e p o w er t o assess appel l at e f

ee s und er§ 1 92 7, w e thi nk i ti s c l ea r f rom the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nal order de ny i ng § 1927 s a nc t i ons f orT c hi vi dj i a n’ s c onduc tbe f or e i ttha ti tw oul d r e a c h the s a m e r e s ul tw i th r e s pe c tt o B e rm a n’ s c onduc ton appe a l . I n i t s f i r s ts a nc t i ons or de r , the di s tr i c te xpr e s s l y f ound tha t“ [ o] n appe a l , H uds on r a i s e d vi r tua l l y the s a m e a r g u m e n ts b e f

o r e th e E le v e n th C ir c u it a s th o s e p r e s e n te d to th is C o u r t.” F o r th e fo reg o i n g reaso n s, th e j u d g m en to f th e d i stri ctco u rti s A FFI R M ED

.