Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 900 MONROE, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-03
Citations: 106 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: Nos. 03-1889, 03-2312
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 900 MONROE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 466–466

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 900 MONROE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 03-1889, 03-2312.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 3, 2004.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 2004.
Charles R. Gross, U.S. Attorney’s Office, for the Western District of Michigan, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff.
William Q. Tingley, III, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Todd R. Dickinson, Fisher & Dickinson, Ada, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant and Defendant-Appellee.
David W. Centner, Drew F. Seaman, Joseph R. Enslen, Straub, Seaman & Allen, St. Joseph, MI, Gary P. Schenk, Schenk & Boncher, Rock A. Wood, John A. Ferroli, Edward P. Perdue, Dickinson & Wright, David W. Centner, Janice F. Bailey, Catherine M. Mish, City Attorney’s Office for the City of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KEITH, MARTIN, and ROGERS; Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.
William Q. Tingley, III, an executive with Proto-Cam. Inc., his son, William Q. Tingley, and their business partner, Daniel R. Bradley, appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment and imposition of sanctions. Appellants argue that the district court erred in 1) dismissing their claims under the False Claims Act rather than giving appellants an opportunity to obtain representation and 2) dismissing their citizen suits under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, and Liability Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Appellants claim that the district court 1) had no basis for finding that appellants had a history of abusive litigation; 2) had no basis for finding that appellants maintained this lawsuit in bad faith; 3) should have notified appellants prior to issuing its decision that they must be represented by a licensed attorney; 4) abused its discretion in awarding sanctions and costs; 5) abused its discretion in issuing its injunction; and 6) was disqualified to impose sanctions in light of the district judge's bias in being a member of the Grand Rapids legal community. We have reviewed the district court's judgment and the appellate briefs in the light most favorable to the appellants and we are not persuaded that the district court erred in any way. We affirm the judgment in its entirety, and reference and incorporate the district court's opinion.