Opinion ID: 26466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order Imposing Sanctions

Text: 20 A lawyer routinely certifies that any representations made to the court are not being presented for any improper purpose, that the legal contentions are warranted by existing law or the non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of the same, and that any allegations have evidentiary support. 13 In light of its interpretation of Rule 62(f), the trial court found that Minor failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law governing execution of judgments before requesting the writ. 14 The record does not support this finding. Minor did research the relevant case law and consulted secondary sources. His research revealed at least one case in which a district court seemingly approved of a similar execution at a Kmart store. 15 In addition, the court found that Minor was seeking to embarrass the defendant and call attention to himself as a tireless laborer of the bar attempting to obtain justice for his client when, in fact, there was no basis whatsoever in fact or in law for the actions taken on August 21, 1997. While we recognize the discretion afforded to the district court in the imposition of sanctions, our interpretation of Rule 62(f) necessarily mandates reversal of the trial court's order. 21 Initially, as noted above, because Kmart did not move for a stay under federal Rule 62(f), it did not enjoy a stay when Minor sought a Writ of Execution. We are aware of no dispositive authority mandating or even suggesting against the seeking of such a writ, and Minor's conduct therefore cannot fairly be characterized as objectively unreasonable. Further, Kmart's actions belie their current contention that they enjoyed a stay under Rule 62(f). Kmart moved for a Rule 62(b) stay pending the court's ruling on the post trial motions, which would have been unnecessary if it already enjoyed a stay under Rule 62(f) because Mississippi Rule 62(a) prevents any execution on a judgment before the expiration of ten days after the later of its entry or the disposition of a motion for a new trial. While Kmart's Rule 62(b) motion would protect against execution during the period after ten days but before the court's ruling on the post-trial motions, we find its failure to reference Rule 62(f) until its motion for sanctions highly suspect. Accordingly, Kmart's performance herein also persuades that Minor's actions were not legally unreasonable. 22 Finally, we conclude that any embarrassment suffered by Kmart as a result of Minor's methodology in executing the judgment at the store is insufficient to justify sanctions under Rule 11. Minor sought to execute on a final judgment for his client. He appropriately sought and obtained a Writ of Execution in accordance with the federal rules. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court should not read an ulterior motive into a document filed for a legitimate purpose because [i]t is not the role of Rule 11 to safeguard a defendant from public criticism that may result from the assertion of non-frivolous claims. 16 Rule 11 treats all filings in the same fashion, whether a complaint or a motion, and Minor's decision to seek a writ of execution passes muster under that Rule. 23 Kmart's complaint, stripped to essentials, is the manner of execution, accompanying the marshals with media representatives. Our decision is not to be taken as condoning the manner in which Minor executed his lawfully obtained writ. The intentional use of publicity for the purpose of embarrassing an adversary is patently inappropriate, but the decision as to any consequences that might flow from such behavior properly belongs in the hands of the Mississippi authorities and their judgment call as to proper professional performance and penalties for any failure thereof. 24 Because of our conclusion that a reversal is in order herein because Minor's conduct was not legally unreasonable and therefore not sanctionable, we do not address Minor's motion for a reversal based on the claim that Kmart inappropriately did not reveal the existence of insurance coverage.