Opinion ID: 820816
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Sanctionable Conduct

Text: This court held in Willis that all claims against BNSF were precluded and that as to PSO, all of Willis’s claims were precluded with the possible exception of “1) Willis’ state law trespass claim to the extent it alleges that PSO wrongfully removed coal and limestone from beneath the surface easement; and 2) Willis’ due process/equal protection claim . . . to the extent that claim is based upon allegations other than that PSO wrongfully possessed and used the easement across Willis’ property during the state condemnation proceedings.” 531 F.3d at 1306. But because the state court condemnation proceedings were not final, we affirmed the state court’s decision to dismiss the claims without prejudice because they were not ripe. However, before the claims could be dismissed, Willis voluntarily dismissed the state court proceedings. Mr. Dickson’s expansion of the litigation beyond what the magistrate judge concluded were the “very well defined boundaries placed on any further litigation,” Aplt. App. at 39, justifies the award. As the magistrate judge explained, “it is [Mr.] Dickson’s conduct in this case, including his failure to heed the Tenth Circuit’s limitations on remand, which merits the Section 1927 sanctions[.]” Id. Because Mr. Dickson’s conduct was objectively unreasonable, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions. -9-
The magistrate judge recommended sanctioning Mr. Dickson for seeking leave to add PSO’s parent company and its litigation counsel as additional parties. This request was made several months after this court’s remand in Willis and more than a month after Willis’s voluntary dismissal of the state court condemnation appeal. The