Opinion ID: 1190367
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard for Evaluation of Motions Under FRAP 38

Text: FRAP 38 provides that [i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee. In Wilton Corp. v. Ashland Castings Corp., 188 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1999), we held that sanctions under FRAP 38 were appropriate when an appeal is wholly without merit and when the appellant's arguments essentially had no reasonable expectation of altering the district court's judgment based on law or fact. Id. at 677. We have conclud[ed] that a finding of bad faith is not required before sanctions under Rule 38 may be imposed by this court. Id.; see also Tareco Props., Inc. v. Morriss, 321 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir.2003) (An appellee does not have to demonstrate that the appellant or his attorneys acted in bad faith to succeed on a motion for sanctions.) (citing Jones v. Continental Corp., 789 F.2d 1225, 1230 (6th Cir.1986)). Nonetheless, we have observed that [w]e will usually impose Rule 38 . . . sanctions only where there was some improper purpose, such as harassment or delay, behind the appeal. Barney v. Holzer Clinic, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1207, 1212 (6th Cir.1997) (emphasis added). Other circuits approach requests for appellate sanctions in a similar fashion. In one particularly relevant case from the Fifth Circuit, that court imposed a sanction of double costs in an antitrust case when appellate counsel made no attempt to address most of the issues raised in the district court's opinion. Olympia Co. v. Celotex Corp., 771 F.2d 888, 893 (5th Cir. 1985). The court further stated that [w]hile we realize that the lack of damages or injury was enough to dispose of [the plaintiff's] action, we note that [the plaintiff] did not address enough of the requisite elements to obtain reversal on any of its substantive claims. Id. Other courts of appeals have found appellate sanctions appropriate when appellants have failed to explain how the district court decision was in error, including failing to discuss key aspects of the court's holding, Spiegel v. Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank, 790 F.2d 638, 650 (7th Cir.1986), and when appellants merely reiterate[ ] the arguments [they] made to the district court and that the district court sanctioned below, Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Cos., 760 F.2d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1985).