Opinion ID: 63215
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Award of Sanctions

Text: Rule 11 provides for sanctions against “any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1). This rule is “aimed at curbing abuses of the judicial system,” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 397 (1990), and is designed “to reduce the reluctance of courts to impose sanctions by emphasizing the responsibilities of attorneys and reinforcing those obligations through the imposition of sanctions,” Thomas, 836 F.2d at 870. Along those lines, attorneys are required to sign “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper” and must certify to the best of their knowledge—formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances—that allegations and other factual contentions submitted to the court have evidentiary support. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11(a), (b)(3); Jenkins v. Methodist Hosps. of Dallas, Inc., 478 F.3d 255, 263–64 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 181 (2007); see also Skidmore, 455 F.3d at 567 (stating that an attorney has a duty “to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts or law before filing the lawsuit” (internal quotations omitted)). These obligations are “personal[ and] nondelegable,” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989), and they “must be satisfied; [a] violation . . . justifies sanctions.” Whitehead, 332 F.3d at 802. In determining compliance with Rule 11, “the standard under which an attorney is measured is an objective, not subjective, standard of reasonableness under the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “The reasonableness of the conduct involved is to be viewed at the time counsel . . . signed the document alleged to be the basis for the Rule 11 violation.” Jennings v. Joshua Indep. Sch. Dist., 948 F.2d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1991). 8 No. 08-20012 Based upon the evidence before it, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Houston and his law firm for failing to conduct a reasonable pre-filing investigation to determine whether GreatSchools was a proper defendant as Worrell’s employer, and for signing and filing the complaint against GreatSchools with numerous incorrect factual allegations. Notably, Houston never filed a response to GreatSchools’s motions, which he acknowledged at the October 17, 2007 hearing. Houston also admitted that he did not conduct any investigation of his own to determine if GreatSchools was affiliated with HCA. Houston asserted only that he relied upon Jamison’s “reasonable” investigation. The evidence, however, reveals that Jamison’s prefiling investigation, and Houston’s reliance upon it in signing the complaint, was far from reasonable. Jamison’s extremely limited research included searching for HCA on (1) the Texas Secretary of State’s website, which did not yield any results; and (2) the internet, where she discovered that GreatSchools’s website listed information on HCA. Based upon this information alone, Jamison concluded that HCA was the parent organization of GreatSchools and Houston relied upon it in including GreatSchools as a defendant. GreatSchools, however, listed HCA on its website, because the site provides a searchable database to parents that contains information on approximately 115,000 schools nationwide. More importantly, GreatSchools expressly disclaims on its website any formal affiliation or legal connection to any school listed in its database. Houston failed to present any evidence to the contrary—indeed, there was no affirmative evidence linking GreatSchools to HCA—or to cite any other research done by him or Jamison before filing suit against GreatSchools. Nor is there any evidence that Worrell told Jamison or Houston that HCA had any connection to GreatSchools or that Worrell’s EEOC proceedings involved GreatSchools. 9 No. 08-20012 Nevertheless, Houston signed the complaint, which contained numerous unsupported and factually incorrect allegations regarding GreatSchools, and filed it with the court. Like the district court, we hold, under an objective standard, that these facts indicate a “complete failure to conduct a reasonable investigation before suing GreatSchools.” Because Houston clearly violated Rule 11, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in assessing sanctions against him and his law firm.