Opinion ID: 63215
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We review all aspects of the district court’s decision to invoke Rule 11 and accompanying sanctions under the abuse of discretion standard.” Am. Airlines, 6 No. 08-20012 Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 968 F.2d 523, 529 (5th Cir. 1992); Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 872 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (holding that the abuse of discretion standard applies “across-the-board to all issues in Rule 11 cases”). This court has noted that this standard is “necessarily very deferential” for two reasons: First, based on its familiarity with the issues and litigants, the district court is better situated than the court of appeals to marshal the pertinent facts and apply the fact-dependent legal standard mandated by Rule 11. Second, the district judge is independently responsible for maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings in his court and, concomitantly, must be accorded the necessary authority. Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802–03 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion if it imposes sanctions based on (1) an erroneous view of the law or (2) a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Skidmore Energy, Inc. v. KPMG, 455 F.3d 564, 566 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 524 (2006). “Generally, an abuse of discretion only occurs when no reasonable person could take the view adopted by the trial court.” Whitehead, 332 F.3d at 803 (internal quotations omitted).