2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-8-2009 

# B r a ddo ck C e met e r y v

. C onsol E ne rg y I nc P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3881

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " B r a ddock C e me t e r y v

. C on s o l E ne r g y I nc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1216. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1216NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N os . 08- 3881/ 08- 3938

_____________ K A RL E. G A RY ; O SCA R R . I A M S; SH I RL EY J . I A M S; C H A R L E S W . P H I L L I P S ; D A V I D H I G G E N B O T H A M; J UDI T H HI GGE NB OT HAM; M AR Y ANN N E E L Y; C H A R L E S A M B R O S E W H IT L A T C H , J R .; D E B R A A N N W H IT L A T C H ; D O N A L D W H IT L A T C H ; F RA NC I S E . WHI T L AT CH ; HE NR Y AB NE R WHI T L AT CH ; N O RM A J EA N W H I TLA TC H ; RO BE RT PH I LLI PS; WI L L I AM H. WHI T L AT CH ; KAT HY L . WHI T L AT CH ; A L FR E D R . C H A M B E R S, as pow er of at t or neyfor G A R Y J. P IE R S O N ; A L F R E D R . C H A M B E R S , JR .; A L FR E D R . C H A M B E R S as pow er of at t or neyfor W IN IF R E D J. P IE R S O N ; P A U L R . P H IL L IP S ; B A R B A R A S W A R T Z M IL L E R ; C H A R L E S E . W H IT L A T C H ; P A T R IC IA W H IT L A T C H ; N E T T IE P H IL IP S M O R R IS ; E DNA P HI L I P S S CH RA DE R; VI RG I NI A KE NNE DY; H ELE N K ELL Y ; M A RY TH O RN E an d KE N N ETH L. PH I LLI PS v. T H E B R A D D O C K C E M E T E R Y A N D C O N SO L E N E R G Y , t he s ucce s s or a n d / o r a s s i g n o f

RH EI NB RU AN U. S. CO RPORA TI ON ; a n d CN X C OA L, t h e s u c c e s s o r a n d / o r a s s i g n o f CO NS OL P E NNS YL VANI A C OAL CO M P ANY CO NSO L ENERG Y an d CN X C OA L, A ppel l ant s i n 08- 3881 T HE BR ADDOC K C E M E T E RY CO M P ANY, A ppel l ant i n 08- 3938

__________-2- C o n so li d ated A p p ea ls from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt

f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 05- cv- 01438) H onor abl e D avi d S. C er cone

___________ Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2009

___________ B efore: M cK ee, H ardi m an, and G reenberg, C i rcui t Judg es,

( Fi l ed: J une 08, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ M c K e e , C i r cui tJudge : W e ar e c a l l e d upon t o de c i de whe the r the Di s tr i c t

Court abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on whe n i t gr ant e d am ot i on for

Rul e 11 s anc t i ons a ga i ns t att orne y s C. W i l l i am

Ke nny and L o u si M . T arasi, Jr., b u t f ailedto o rd er m o n etary

relief in th e f o rm o f atto rn ey s’ f

ees to the a gg r i e ve d p art i e s a s part of that s anc t i on . Gi ve n o ur

l i m i t e d s t and ar d o f r e vi e w, we cann ot conclude that

the fai lure to im

po se a m on et ar

y sancti on is re vers ible er

ror. We w i l l th e r e f

o r e a f f i rm. Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y for the part i e s , we ne e d not

e nga ge i n an e xt e ns i ve d iscu ssio n o f

th e f acts o r reiterate th e to rtu redan dco n v o lu tedp ro cedu ral h isto ry o f th isTh is ca se has c om e before a panel of this court i n the past . The deci si on ther e 1 co n tain s a m o re co m

p lete statem en t o f

th is d isp u te. S

ee G a ry v. B ra d

d o ck Cem etery , 517 F .3 d1 9 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 8 ). Ru le 1 1 p ro v id es in relev an t p art: 2 By pres enti ng to the c ou rt

a ple ading, writte n m otion, or other paper-- wh ether by

si gn ing, fili ng , s ub m itti ng , or l at er advo cati ng it -- an atto rn ey o r u n rep resen tedp arty

certif ies th at to th e b est o f

th e p erso n 's kn o w led g e, in f

o rm atio n , an db elief

, f o rm edaf ter an in qu iry

reaso n ab le u n d er th e circu m stan ces: (1 ) it is n o t b ein g p resen tedf o r an y im p ro p er p u rp o se, su ch as to h arass, cau se u n n ecessary

d elay , o r n eed lessly

in crease th e co st o f

litig atio n ; ( 2) the c l a i m s , de fe ns e s , and othe r l e ga l c ont e nt i ons ar e warr ant e d by e xi s t i ng l aw or

by anonfr i vol ous ar gum e nt for e xt e ndi ng, m odi fyi ng, or rev ersin g ex istin g law o r f o r estab lish in g n ew law . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (b). -3- m atte r. We have ju ri sdic ti on ov er this m atte r pursuant t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 12 91 . Our re view 1 of the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s ruli ng on the m otions fo r s anct ions un der Rule 11 is s ub ject to an ab u se o f d iscretio n stan d ard . Si mme rman v . Cor i no , 2 7 F .3 d5 8 , 6 1 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 4 ). A Di s tr i c t Court ha s abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i f i t s de t e rm i nat i ons ar e “ c ontr ary t o r e a s on or withou t a re as on able basi s i n law and f ac t. ” I d. at 62. Ap pell ants Co nsol En er gy , Con sol Pennsylvania Co al Co m

pany and the Braddo ck Ce m e t e ry m ove d for

Rul e 11 s anc t i ons a ga i ns t Pl a i nt i ffs ’ att or

ne y s , ar gui ng the fi l i ng of thi s fe de r a l a c t i on wa s ba s e l e s s and/ or ve xat i ous . Aft e r

r e m and fr om

thi s c ourt , the 2 m otion f or Ru le 11 sancti on s a gainst Plai ntiffs’ att orney s was re ferr ed to a Unite d S tate s-4-

M ag istrate Ju d g e, w h o issu eda R ep o rt an dR eco mm en d atio n (“R &R ”). T h e M ag istrate Judg e waded throug h the tort ured hist ory

of this dispute andconcluded that Rule 11 h ad be e n vi ol at e d. The R& R e xpl a i ne d:

It is w ell-estab lish edth at Ru le 1 1 S an ctio n s are w arran tedo n ly in “ex cep tio n al circu m stan ces in w h ich th e claim o r m o tio n is p aten tly un m er it orious or frivolou s. ” Moreover, a re view of

Th ir d C ir cuit

ca se law r e ve a l s that

ac ourt s houl d r e fus e t o i m

pos e s anc t i ons unl e s s , a s he r e , the m ov ing p ar

ty can sho w a com

plet e l ac k o f f

ac tual or le gal s up po rt

fo r a c l a i m . Rul e 11 Sanc t i ons , par e nthe t i c a l l y , ar e ne ve r a ppr opr i at e whe n a p arty ’s “o n ly

sin w as b ein g . . . u n su ccessf u l.” T h at said , th e Co u rt, al t hough i t has s trai ne d to f

i nd ot he rwi s e, i s unable to i de nt i

f ya t he or yor rea so n a b le exten sio n o

f existin g la w th a t w o u ld

su p p o rt th is la wsu it a ga in st th e D efen d

a n t[ s] . ( J A 25- 26) ( c i t at i ons om i tt e d) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . Ne ve rthe l e s s , the Ma gi s tr at e Judge co n clu d edth at “m o n etary san ctio n s are in ap p ro p riate an dth e p ub lic f ilin g o f th is doc um e nt i s as uffi c i e nt

s anc t i on. ” ( J A 27) . The Di s tr i c t Court a dopt e d the R& R a s the o p in io n o f

th e D istrict C o u rt, an dth is ap p eal f o llo w ed . A p p ellan ts n o w arg u e th at th e D istrict C o u rt ab u sedits d iscretio n b y d eclin in g to im p o se m o n etary

san ctio n s b ecau se th e m ere p ub lic f ilin g o f th e R &R is n o t su f f icien t to “det er base le ss fili ng s. ” Altho ug h w e m ay well have been incli ned to im po se m on et ar

y s anc t i ons on thi s r e c or d i f we ha d be e n s t andi ng i n the s hoe s of the Ma gi s tr at e Judge and the Di s tr i c t

Judge , we c annot

s ay the c hoi c e of apubl i c r e buke wa s unr e a s onabl e or co n trary to th e law . Ru le 11 dire ct s the distri ct court t o lim it

sancti on s t o “wh at

suff ic es to dete r r e pe t i t i on of the c onduc t

or c om par abl e c onduc t

by othe r s s i m i l ar l y

s i t uat e d. ” Fe d. R.Mor e ove r , i n thi s c y be rne t i c a ge , the r e buke i s a c c e s s i bl e t o anyone and 3 ever yon e who has a cc es s t o the omnipres ent i nter net andthe t im e andcuri osit y to ente r a f ew sim p le k ey stro k es in to a searchen g in e. I n d e e d , i t

i s c e rt a i n l y c o n c e i v ab l e th at m an y att o rn e ys w o u l dr ath e r qu i e t l y p ay a 4 m one t ary s um and have the m att e r

c l os e d, r athe r

than havi ng t o c ont e nd wi th the lin g erin g ef

f ect o f a j u d g e’s p ub lic rep rim an dth at h as b een m ad e p art o f th e p ub lic reco rdth at is so accessib le w ith in leg al an dp ro f essio n al circles. -5- Civ. P. 11 (c )( 4). App el lants i m ply that public ly fili ng an op inion w hich find s that Pl a i nt i ffs ’ att orne y s vi ol at e d Rul e 11, wi thout m or e , i s nothi ng m or e than as l a p on the w rist. H o w ev er, as Ju stice S tev en s o n ce o b serv ed , “m o st law y ers are w ise en o u g h to kn ow that

thei r m ost pre ci ou s a ss et is thei r profess ional r eputat ion.” Co oter & Gell v. Har t mar xCor p. , 496 U. S. 384, 413 ( 1990) ( St e ve ns , J . , c onc urr i ng i n part and di s s e nt i ng in part ). Near ly

fo ur ce nturie s a go , a

si m il ar ob se rvat ion w as m ade by no le ss an ob se rver of hu m an nature than Wi ll iam Sh akes pear e. He fam ou sl y wrote: “Goo d n am e . . . [ i] s th e imm ed iate j ew el o f [ o u r] so u ls: Wh o steals my p urse steals . . . n o th in g ; . . . B u t h e th at f

ilch es f ro m m e my g o o dn am e / R o b s m e o f th at w h ich n o t en rich es h im , / An d m akes m e poo r i nd ee d.” O th ello ac t 3, s c. 3. Th e wis do m of that ob se rvat ion h as s urvi ve d the t e s t

of t i m e , havi ng e ndur e d s i nc e 1603. Th us, a public re prim and o f an att orney by a federa l jud ge is no t t o b e t aken li gh tl y . I t i s a

public re bu ke that

can rever berate within the l egal comm un it y and h ave a prof ou ndim pact on on e who is supp osed to st and as an o ff ic er of the c ou rt and con du ct him se lf/her se lf ac cordingly . We si ncer el y do ub t t hat Pla inti ff

s’ coun se l, no r any

other 3 m e m b e r o f th e l e g a l c o mm

u n i ty w i l l t ak e th e s an c t i o n th at w a s i m p o s e dh e r e l i g h t l y. 4-6-

Wh ile th e A p p ellan ts are u n d erstan d ab ly f ru stratedb y

th e tim e an dex p en se i nc urr e d i n de fe ndi ng a ga i ns t thi s m e r i t l e s s l aws ui t , and di s a ppoi nt e d that

m or e wa s not do ne, i t m

ust be r em em

bere d that Rule 11 is not “a general fee s hifting d evic e. ” Gai ardo v . Et hy l Cor p. , 8 3 5 F .2 d4 7 9 , 4 8 3 (3 dC ir. 1 9 8 7 ). M o reo v er, alth o u g h th is reco rdref lects ac on t i nu e d c our s e of

ve xat i ou s c on du c t

onthe part

of Pl a i nt i ff s ’ c ouns e l , we ne ve rthe l e s s c an not

c onc l ude that

the c onduc t

r e qui r e s us t o i nt e r fe r e wi th the de c i s i on of the Di s tr i c t

Judge or Ma gi s tr at e Judge who ar e m or e “ [f]am i l i ar wi th the i s s ue s and litig an ts” th an w e are. Co oter , 4 9 6 U .S . at 4 0 2 . T h e j u d g m en t o f th e D istrict C o u rt is the r e for e a ffi rm e d.