Document: 503 U.S. 131 112 S.Ct. 1076 117 L.Ed.2d 280 Donald J. WILLY, Petitioner,v.COASTAL CORPORATION et al. No. 90-1150. Argued Dec. 3, 1991. Decided March 1992. Syllabus After petitioner Willy sued respondent Coastal Corporation in Texas state court, alleging that fired him violation of, inter alia, federal and environmental law "whistleblower" provisions, removed the case to Federal District Court. That court rejected Willy's argument it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction dismissed for failure a claim. It also imposed sanctions against him, pursuant Rule of Civil Procedure 11, based on conduct was unrelated petitioner's effort convince jurisdiction. The Court Appeals concluded jurisdiction, but upheld court's decision award remanded determine amount. On second appeal, had no authority impose absence Held: A may 11 which district is later determined be without Pp. 134-139. (a) While expansive language Rules 1 81(c) indicates clear intent have Rules, including apply all civil proceedings, must deemed only if their application will not impermissibly expand judicial conferred by Article III, see Sibbach v. Wilson, 312 1, 61 422, 85 L.Ed. 479. 134-135. (b) Court's order this does lie outside range action constitutionally permitted an III court. concedes Congress has power regulate courts authorize imposition sanctions. He errs contending aborted whenever at time objectionable occurred. concern with maintenance orderly procedure, even wake jurisdictional ruling found mistaken, justifies conclusion sanction here need upset. See, e.g., United States Mine Workers, 330 258, 67 677, 91 884. Because deals issue whether rules were violated, instant collateral merits case. Thus, implicates constitutional because deal assessment complaint's legal merits, over See Cooter & Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 110 2447, 359. And interest having procedure obeyed did disappear subsequent determination Catholic Conference Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 72, 108 2268, 101 69, distinguished. 135-139. 915 F.2d 965 (CA5 1990), affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion unanimous THE CHIEF JUSTICE We granted certiorari decide 501 ----, 111 2824, 115 994 (1991). conclude circumstances presented do so. 2 Petitioner (Coastal) raising variety claims relating Coastal's terminate his employment as "in-house" counsel. alleged he been due refusal participate respondent's various laws. Respondent Court, claiming original federal-question under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. objected removal, "arise under" law, § disagreed subsequently motion dismiss claim, Fed.Rule Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6), pendent claims. 3 At same time, sanctions, awarding attorney's fees $22,625 attorney, Young, jointly severally. filings made plaintiff's counsel "create[d] blur absolute confusion." App. Pet. Cert. A-7. These included 1,200-page, unindexed, unnumbered pile materials "to conscious wanton affront process, opposing counsel" "irresponsible minimum worst intentionally harassing." Ibid. Petitioner's sanctionable behavior careless pleading, such reliance nonexistent Evidence. None related initial 4 Fifth Circuit complaint raised arising law. 855 1160 (1988). therefore reversed dismissing instructed although remand recomputed amount $19,307, incurred responding conduct. 1990). 5 contention that, rested "inherent powers" courts—those powers " 'necessary exercise others.' Id., 966 (quoting Roadway Express, Inc. Piper, 447 752, 764, 100 2455, 2463, 65 488 (1980)). example inherent powers. principally relied our recent 359 (1990), we filing frivolous though entered after plaintiff voluntarily its suit. 6 Before advances two first Congress, acquiescing adoption Procedure, "authoriz[e] recovery or costs parties who prevail grounds." Brief 18. finds both Act "implicit premise . practice are necessary disputes beyond III." 28. Phrased way, correct, dispose 7 Enabling Act, 2072, authorizes "prescribe general evidence cases courts. ." Those "abridge, enlarge modify any substantive right." In response, adopted Procedure. governs scope. provides "[t]hese govern suits nature. specifically "apply actions from removal." This contains express exceptions proceedings.1 8 But 479 (1941), observed courts, adopting rules, free extend restrict statute. 10, S.Ct., 425. Such caveat applies fortiori rule described Constitution. then, III. examine second, contention, lies 9 begins pointing out limits certain "cases controversies." 11. then contends grant unconstitutional act because, lacks "a source power, according petitioner, attempted this, would run afoul 10 making acknowledges there some costs, where eventually proves jurisdiction.2 contends, however, instances limited narrowly prescribed category include situation party successfully contested think contentions flawed several respects. I, Section 8, cl. establish lower From almost founding days country, firmly established acting make laws "necessary proper"3 establishment, enact regulating those means judgments enforced. Wayman Southward, 23 (10 Wheat.) 21-22, 253 (1825); Hanna Plumer, 380 460, 473, 1136, 1145, 14 (1965) (describing "long-recognized prescribe housekeeping courts"). Indeed, acknowledging many can imposed, statutory basis, effectively Congress' specific n. 2, supra. 12 leaves occurred, final lack course, precludes further adjudication it. automatically wipe proceedings when operated misapprehension Chicot County Drainage Baxter State Bank, 308 371, 60 317, 84 329 (1940), held judgment rendered ultimately nonetheless res judicata attack one parties. also, Stoll Gottlieb, 305 165, 59 134, 83 104 (1938). Stoll, practical providing end litigation preventing subject matter 172, 138. 13 884 (1947), criminal contempt citation assumption issuing underlying action. case, question direct review, attack. expressed these cases—the mistaken—justifies ordered seeks upset merits. recently occasion 11's scope purpose great detail (1990). challenge imposing complaint, course discussion noted "[i]t well consider issues longer pending. [A]n Rather, requires issue: attorney abused and, so, what appropriate." 2456. "does signify complaint." raise adjudicating "case controversy" 15 places weight 69 (1988), involving contemnors, nonparty witnesses, refused comply document subpoena. them pay fine $50,000 per day. right, immediately appealed order, challenging obligated full, rather than simply contenting itself inquiry into colorably lacking fall. Focusing part decision, cites establishing proposition fall fact absent.4 16 stand broad assertion. much different purposes sanction. designed force contemnor id., 79, 2272; punish already violated rules. Gell, supra, U.S., ----. Given coerce compliance decree, logical should showing enter decree. Accord, 17 obeyed, contrast, upon Courts mistakes; possible seek relief appellate tribunal. immediate appeal authorized, infirmity requiring practicing before themselves applicable procedural interim, allow event so.5 18 For foregoing reasons, 19 Affirmed. every paper filed signed party. signature constitutes certificate signer best signer's knowledge, information, belief formed reasonable grounded warranted existing good faith extension, modification, reversal interposed improper purpose, harass cause unnecessary delay needless increase cost litigation." pleading contravention subjects represents "an appropriate sanction, other expenses motion, paper, fee." take given correctly insufficiently satisfy Rule, payment joint liability appropriate. 18, 14, 1919 (authorizing "payment just costs" suit jurisdiction) 1447(c) wrongful removal). 22-27, admitting through obstruct Art. acknowledge exceptions, 2. Our acted within applied makes us alternative powers."

Category: 8