FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 7, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T 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. 05- 16701 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 04 -031 72 -C V -C A M -1 C A L V I N J O N E S , P la in tif f

- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s C L A Y T O N C O U N T Y , a P ol i t i ca l S ub di vi si on of th e S ta te o f

G e o r g ia , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 7, 2006) B efo re C A R N E S , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C alv in Jo n es ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s o rd er g ra n ti n g C layto n C o u n ty’s
m ot i on for s um m ar y j ud gm enton Jones’ s d i sc ri m i nat i on (r ac e) cl ai m s f i l edWe lack jurisdiction to reviewthe district court’s entry of sanc tions ag ainst J ones’s 1 counsel, b ased on the court’s f inding that c ounsel ac ted in bad faith and knowing ly pursued a frivolous, time-bar

red c laim. It is well-settled that we must consider questions conc erning our jurisdiction, even where neither party raises jurisdiction as an issue. Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 844 (11th Cir. 2006). This Court is without jurisdiction to consider the propriety of a district court’s imposition of sanctions ag ainst a party ’s attorney , where the attorney has not filed a timely document cle arly

indicatinghis intent to appeal the sanc tions. Id. As in Holloman, J ones’s attorney failed to file a separate notice of a ppeal, indicating his intent to appeal the district court’s impositionof

sanc tio ns ag ains t hi m, andlike wi sedidno t li st hims e lf a s a pa rty onapp e al inhis client’s notice. Moreover , J ones’s brie f i n this action was filed on J anuary 11, 2006, which wa s over two months after thefinal judg ment wa s entered and w ell after the de adline for filing a notice of appeal had expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4( a)( 1)(A)
. Acc ording ly , we DI SMI SS the appe al as to the e ntry of sanc tio ns . Jone s w a s terminate d inMay 20 03 , b ut did n ot f

ilea c laim w iththeEE OC untilJuly 2 2004, which wa s well af

ter e x piration of the 180- day limit ation period enumerated in Title VII . See 42 U. S.C. § 20 05 e -5 (e )( 1) ; 42 U. S.C. § 12 11 7( a). An d h emadenoargument i n f avo r o f e qu ita

ble tolling of the limitation period. Cf. Forehand v. Fla. St ate Hosp. at Chatahooche e, 89 F .3d 1562, 1570 n.17 (11th Cir. 1996) (holdi ng that the timely filing of an EEOC c harg e is “subjec t to waiver, estoppel and e quitable tolling”)
. 2 pur s ua ntt o T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A c tof 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 2000e

- 2( a )
. T he 1 di stri ctcourtent er ed sum m ar y j ud gm entaf t erfi nd i ng : (1) t hatJones l ac ked st andi ng be c a us e he fa i l e d t o d i s c l os e thi s po t e nti a l c a us e of a c t i on a s a po t e nt i al
as se ti n h i s vol un t ar y pet it io n for C hapt er7 b ankrup t cy , w hi ch he fi l ed
a p p r o x im a te l y n in e m o n th s b e fo r e f ilin g th is s u it, a n d ( 2 ) th a t J o n e s fa ile d to exhausthi s a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es un der T it l e V II i n a t i m el y m anner. A ft er 2
c a r e f u l r e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m th e e n tr y o f

s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, b u t r e m a n d th e c a s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo ra d e te r m i n a tio n o f th e a m o u n t o f

C la y to n C o u n ty ’s r e a s o n a b le
a p p e lla te a tto r n e y s ’ fe e s .3

Re ga r dl e s s of w he the r a ba nk r up t c y de bt or di s c l os e s i t s e xi s t e nc e , a prepet i t i on ca use of a ct i on i s the prop er t y of the C hapt er7 b ankrup tcy es tat e. P ar ker
v . W e n d y ’s I n te r n a tio n a l, I n c . , 3 6 5 F
. 3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . “T h u s , a tr u s te e , a s th e r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f th e b a n k r u p tc y e s ta te , is th e p r o p e r p a r t y in in te r e s t,
a nd i s t h e onl y pa r t y w i th s t a ndi ng t o pr os e c ut e c a us e s of a c t i on be l ongi ng t o the
e s ta te .” I d
. J o n e s h a d p u t fo r th n o a r g u m e n t s , e i t h e rin th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o ro n a p p e a l, ad d ress i ng hi s l ac k o f s t andi ng t o b ri ng thi s a ct i on , w hi ch w as the di stri ctco u rt’s pri m ar y r ea soni ng for e nt er i ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent . Inst ea d, on appeal , Jones
ar gu es th at h e pre se nt ed suff i ci entevi dence of a patt er n o f r ac i al l y m ot i vat ed
e m p lo y m e n t p r a c tic e s a n d d is p a r a te tr e a t m e n t b a s e d o n r a c e , s u f f ic ie n t to a v o id
e n tr y o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t o n h is T itle V I I c la i m s . W e r e f u s e to r e a c h th e m e r its
o f J o n e s ’s u n d e r ly in g s u it b e c a u s e o u rc a s e la w m a k e c le a rth a t J o n e s ’s fa i lu r e to l i s tthi s c a us e of

a c t i on a s a pot e nt i a l a s s e ton hi s ba nkr upt c y pe t i t i on m e a ns tha the l ac ks st andi ng t o b ri ng thi s c l ai m . S ee id
. at12 71 -72. Jones’ s pot ent i al d is c r im in a tio n c la im b e c a m e a n a s s e t o f th e b a n k r u p tc y e s ta te w h e n h e f ile d h is ba nkr upt cy p et i t i on a nd the c l a i m r e m a i ns a n a s s e tof the ba nkr upt c y e s t a t e . I d. B e c a u s e th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e tr u s te e , w h o is th e r e a l p a r ty in in te r e s t in th is4

di s c r i m i na t i on su i t , e ve ra ba ndone d thi s c l a i m , J one s l a c ks s t a ndi ng t o br i ng the cl ai m . Id
. at1 2 7 2
. W e affi rm th e en try o f su m m ary j u d g m en to n th i s b asi s. F i n al l y, C l a y t on C ount y ha s m ove d thi s c our tt o a w a r d s a nc t i ons , i n the for m of ap p el l at e a t t or ne y s ’ fe e s a nd doubl e c os t s , pur s ua ntt o R ul e 38 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

A ppe l l a t e P r oc e dur e . R ul e 38 pr ovi de s the fol l ow i ng: If a co u rto f ap p eal s d et erm i n es th atan ap p eal i s f r iv o lo u s , i tm ay, a f te ra s e p a r a te ly f

ile d m o tio n o rn o tic e f

r o m th e c o u r t a n d r e a s o n a b le o p p o r tu n ity to r e s p o n d , a w a r d ju s t d a m a g e s a n d s in g le o rd o u b le c o s ts t o t he appel l ee . F ed. R
. A pp . P
. 38
. C l ay t on C ou nt y hi gh l i gh t s that Jo nes has no tso m uch as
m e nt i one d the i s s u e o f s t a ndi ng i n hi s a ppe l l a t e br i e f
. H i s l a c k of s t a ndi ng w a s the fi rs t rea son n ot ed by the di stri ctcourtfor e nt er i ng sum m ar y j ud gm entand, al on e, pr ov i d e s a s u f

f i c i e n t b a s i s fo r u s t o a f

f i r m. Cl a y t o n Co u n t y u r g e s th a t th e f i l i ng of thi s a ppe a l ha s r e s ul t e d i n a w a s t e of r e s our c e s t o the C ount y a nd i t s t a xpa y e r s a nd th e r e s o u r c e s o f t h i s C o u r t. W e a g r e e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e g r a n t th e m o tio n , in p a r t,
a w a r di ng the C ounty a ppe l l a t e a t t or ne y s ’ fe e s a nd s i ngl e c os t s , a nd rem an d t o the di s tr i c tc our tfora de t e r m i na t i on of r e a s ona bl e fe e s . S e e W i l l i am s v. C i t y of F ai rb u rn , G a. , 7 0 2 F
. 3 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 4 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ) (aw ard i n g ap p el l at e at t o rn eys’ fe es and cost s a nd re m andi ng t o d i stri ctcourtfor det er m i nat i on of am ou nt ). D I SM I SSED I N PA R T A N D A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; R EM A N D ED W I TH I N STR U C TI O N S.