Opinion ID: 3009818
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Appellant, Rebecca E. Bender (Bender), an attorney who represen defendants, Harold E. Brown, Kyle Energy, Inc. and Kyle Energy and Kyle Ene 0 Corporation, in this action, appeals orders of the United States District C Western District of Pennsylvania sanctioning her for refusing to comply with order and for refiling two motions the court reserved for trial after denyi prejudice.0 The discovery sanctions required Bender and Brown to pay $500 ea costs plaintiff Leon M. Martin (Martin) incurred in connection with the di request. Bender's and Brown's liability for these costs was joint and sever sanction for refiling the two motions required Bender individually to pay an $500. In an accompanying memorandum, the district court stated that it was sanctions under Rule 11, Rule 37, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1927 (West 1994) and the co power. Brown shortly thereafter filed for bankruptcy in the Middle Distri Bankruptcy Court. Martin's case against Brown was stayed under the automati Bankruptcy Code § 362, 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (West Supp. 1995), and the district an order dismissing Martin's case against Brown without prejudice. Bender d represent Brown in the bankruptcy, which is still pending. 0 Bender represented all three defendants. For the sake of simplicity, howev refer solely to Brown. 0 The orders Bender appeals are dated April 20 and April 25, 1994. They impo sanctions. The April 20 order, however, did not include the docket numbers limine motions. See Martin v. Brown, No. 86-1239, slip op. at 1 n.1 (W.D. 1994). 3 Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that we have appella jurisdiction over Bender's appeal despite the fact that the district court d underlying action without prejudice. Appellant's Appendix (App.) at 664 hold that the manner in which the district court judge imposed these sanctio Bender of the essentials of procedural due process, viz, fair notice and an be heard. Because of our disposition of this appeal on procedural grounds, i unnecessary for us to decide the propriety of the sanctions imposed on Bend therefore vacate the district court's orders imposing sanctions on Bender an case to it for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.