Opinion ID: 2641881
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Union's request for costs and fees

Text: A district court's decision to grant or deny a request for costs and fees is reviewed for a manifest abuse of discretion. Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 292 (1st Cir. 2001). Here, the district court assessed the Union's request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Rule 11), apparently not recognizing that an award of costs and fees is available as a matter of federal common law for actions proceeding under § 301 of the LMRA. See Local 2322, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Verizon New England, Inc., 464 F.3d 93, 100 (1st Cir. 2006). It is well accepted that a court's material error of law -18- is invariably an abuse of its discretion. Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 528 F.3d 15, 25 (1st. Cir. 2008). Therefore, the district court's determination not to award costs and fees based on the Union's failure to cite Rule 11 or comply with its requirements was in error. The district court went on, however, to hold that even had the Union complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 11, it would have, in its discretion, denied the request to award fees and costs as a sanction on the record presented. Because the standard for awarding costs and fees under Rule 11 is substantially the same as that of section 301 actions, compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (allowing courts to apply sanctions in the case of frivolous arguments), with Local 2322, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 464 F.3d at 100 (allowing for an award of costs and fees where arguments are frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation), the district court's error appears, for all practical purposes, devoid of materiality. Consequently, we review the district court's latter holding, denying an award of costs and fees based on its review of the record, for an abuse of discretion. The Union asserts that an award of costs and fees is necessary to avoid the continued filing of frivolous litigation seeking to overturn arbitral awards. It requests that this court assign costs and fees as a means by which to deter potential -19- litigants, lest we be continually inundated with what the Union styles as wholly frivolous claims. Undisputedly, this court has long lamented the exasperating frequency with which arbitration awards are appealed. See Posadas de P.R. Assocs., Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados de Casino de P.R., 821 F.2d 60, 61 (1st Cir. 1987). Here, however, FairPoint's claims do not appear wholly frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. Local 2322, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 464 F.3d at 100. The line between frivolous arguments and merely unpersuasive ones is fine, and while FairPoint was ultimately unsuccessful, its contention that the panel impermissibly modified, rather than interpreted, the CBA was at least colorable. Id. On this basis, we will not usurp the district court's discretion by awarding costs and fees it chose to deny.