Case Name: In the Matter of Michael B. CUPIT; Tamara A. Cupit, Debtors, Michael B. Cupit; Tamara A. Cupit, as Natural Tutrix of the Estates of Her Minor Children, Appellants, v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; et al, Appellees, Thomas J. Pluskat, in his official capacity as Administrator, De Bonis No, of the Estate of Mary Reid, Deceased, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-24
Citations: 194 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 05-31126
Parties: In the Matter of Michael B. CUPIT; Tamara A. Cupit, Debtors, Michael B. Cupit; Tamara A. Cupit, as Natural Tutrix of the Estates of Her Minor Children, Appellants, v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; et al, Appellees, Thomas J. Pluskat, in his official capacity as Administrator, De Bonis No, of the Estate of Mary Reid, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Michael B. CUPIT; Tamara A. Cupit, Debtors, Michael B. Cupit; Tamara A. Cupit, as Natural Tutrix of the Estates of Her Minor Children, Appellants, v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; et al, Appellees, Thomas J. Pluskat, in his official capacity as Administrator, De Bonis No, of the Estate of Mary Reid, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 05-31126
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 2006.
Norman A. Pattis, Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, CT, for Appellants.
David M. Culpepper, New Orleans, LA, for Appellees.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Debtor-Appellant, Michael B. Cupit, claims that the district court erred by imposing Rule 11 sanctions against him without first providing adequate notice of the exact nature of his potentially sanctionable conduct. Cupit argues that the district court's order to show cause on the sanctions issue was confusing and insufficiently precise to allow him to prepare an ade quate defense against the imposition of sanctions. We disagree.
'We review all aspects of the district court's decision to invoke Rule 11 and accompanying sanctions under the abuse of discretion standard." Appellate review is deferential because the imposition or denial of sanctions involves a fact-intensive inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the activity alleged to be a violation of Rule 11. The trial court is in the best position to review the factual circumstances and render an informed judgment, as it is intimately involved with the case, the litigants, and the attorneys on a daily basis.
On July 20, 2005, the district court, after painstakingly explaining in open court its specific reasons for dismissing Cupit's lawsuit, informed him that it found his lawsuit and the pleadings he had filed in it "totally frivolous" and ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under either Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We find that, contrary to Cupit's contentions, the court's discourse was amply sufficient to provide him all the notice he should have needed to bear his burden — if he could — of showing why he should not be sanctioned. The district court's statements clearly indicated that Cupit should be prepared to show that his actions regarding his lawsuit did not violate any or all of the provisions of Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. This might be arguably less than specific, but given the extent of Cupit's perceived misconduct in this case, the trial court's handling of these proceedings was far from an abuse of discretion. We affirm the district court's order imposing sanctions against Cupit.
Even though the appellees have not sought additional sanctions for a frivolous appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, this appeal too appears to be frivolous and without merit. We caution Cupit that any efforts to prolong this matter could expose him to such sanctions.
SANCTIONS AFFIRMED; CAUTION ISSUED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 968 F.2d 523, 529 (5th Cir.1992).
. Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 873 (5th Cir.1988) (enbanc).