Opinion ID: 1259095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: amount of sanctions

Text: Finally, Biggs contends that the trial court should have considered the least severe sanctions necessary, that his ability to pay the sanctions now that he no longer practices law should have been considered, that the court failed to make any finding that Biggs had not made a reasonable inquiry or instituted suit for an improper purpose, and that the affidavits in support of the motion failed to indicate the fees actually expended on responding to the sanctionable conduct. It appears that the trial court felt that Vail should be compensated for his efforts in responding to the frivolous claims, and that the court viewed CR 11 as a method of achieving such compensation. In its order imposing sanctions, the trial court repeated our language that: It appears in this case that the plaintiff, an attorney, was sanctioned for what the trial court considered to be pointless contentiousness and an abusive approach to the practice of law. By reversing the sanctions in this case, we do not in any way condone Mr. Biggs' conduct. However, in order to sanction Mr. Biggs, we will not extend the reach of the statute beyond that intended by the Legislature. Biggs I, at 137. Nowhere else in its order does the trial court specifically mention the conduct which merited the sanction. It appears that the court simply entered the same amount of sanctions previously disallowed under RCW 4.84.185 without further inquiry. In the original sanctions entered under RCW 4.84.185, the trial court awarded $25,000 of a request for $48,000. However, the affidavits in the record show the following requests were made: William Rush $25,140.20 David Vail $22,570.00 Clerk's Papers, at 47-68. It is not clear upon what basis the trial court reduced the initial claim under RCW 4.84.185; however, it is clear that attorney Vail was acting as client and defendant in this matter, and his claim for fees must be discounted. Doing so, it appears that the $25,000 awarded most likely exceeds the amount of fees spent actually responding to the sanctionable conduct. See Bryant, at 225. [9] Moreover, there was no consideration of mitigation. Bryant, at 228 (Andersen, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). Cf. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 859 P.2d 1210 (1993) (fees under RCW 4.28.185(5) should be limited to no more than necessary to compensate for added litigative burdens). Should a court decide that the appropriate sanction under CR 11 is an award of attorney fees, it must limit those fees to the amounts reasonably expended in responding to the sanctionable filings. Generally, this award of reasonable fees should not exceed those fees which would have been incurred had notice of the violation been brought promptly. Cf. Fetzer, at 148-53 (discussing factors to be used in deciding on reasonable attorney fees under RCW 4.28.185(5)). It is clear from the record that the trial court's primary goal in entering these sanctions was to compensate Vail, whereas Bryant makes clear that CR 11 sanctions should be limited to the minimum necessary, and should not be used as a fee-shifting mechanism. Bryant, at 220, 225. [10] Finally, in imposing CR 11 sanctions, it is incumbent upon the court to specify the sanctionable conduct in its order. The court must make a finding that either the claim is not grounded in fact or law and the attorney or party failed to make a reasonable inquiry into the law or facts, or the paper was filed for an improper purpose. CR 11. See also Bryant, at 219-20. In this case, there were no such findings. [11] Accordingly, we must remand this case once again to the trial court to: (1) make explicit findings as to which filings violated CR 11, if any, as well as how such pleadings constituted a violation and (2) impose an appropriate sanction for any such violation, which may include the amount of Vail's attorney fees incurred in responding specifically to the sanctionable conduct. [3] The burden is on the movant to justify the request for sanctions. Finally, we deny both parties' requests for fees under RAP 18.7 and RAP 18.9(a). UTTER, DOLLIVER, GUY, and MADSEN, JJ., concur. ANDERSEN, C.J. (dissenting) Mr. Vail lost his bid for attorneys' fees on the only legal theory he raised at the time of trial. That should have ended the matter once and for all. I would hold that the trial court was without authority to devise a different basis for awarding this litigant the same remedy, based on the same facts, that was reversed on appeal. CR 11 sanctions were not sought or mentioned at the time of trial by Mr. Vail, his counsel or the trial court. The trial court in this case originally awarded $25,000 in attorneys' fees to Mr. Vail's counsel. The fees were awarded pursuant to RCW 4.84.185, the frivolous action statute. We reversed that award, holding that under the facts of this case the frivolous action statute did not provide a basis for an award of attorneys' fees. Biggs v. Vail, 119 Wn.2d 129, 830 P.2d 350 (1992) ( Biggs I). Our opinion in Biggs I, which I authored for the court, notes that we did not condone Mr. Biggs' conduct and further notes that remedial measures could have been considered by the trial court as possibly appropriate to prevent or correct such conduct. Biggs I, 119 Wn.2d at 137. After the mandate was issued in Biggs I, Mr. Vail incorrectly argued to the trial court that we had remanded [the case] back for a finding consistent with [our] opinion asking for sanctions under CR 11. Report of Proceedings, at 8-9. This was error; we did not remand the case at all. We affirmed the judgment on the contract claim and reversed the award of attorneys' fees. It was not until after the mandate was issued by this court that Mr. Vail moved for CR 11 sanctions; asking not for sanctions generally but rather for attorneys' fees, based on the same facts that had been the basis of his frivolous action claim. The trial court again awarded $25,000 in attorneys' fees. This flies directly in the face of this court's clear mandate and, to my view, is nothing more than a losing party on appeal and the trial court which had been reversed devising a new basis to reinstitute a reversed ruling. I do not countenance such conduct. I agree with the majority opinion that a trial court may, in some circumstances, impose sanctions under CR 11 even after a judgment has been entered. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 L.Ed.2d 359, 110 S.Ct. 2447 (1990), holding the trial court had jurisdiction to impose sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (Rule 11) after the action was voluntarily dismissed, where defendant had filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions prior to dismissal. Here, however, the motion for sanctions in issue was not even brought until nearly 5 years after the offending pleading was filed. [4] The majority acknowledges that a motion for sanctions made some 4 1/2 years after trial normally would be impermissible. Majority opinion, at 198. The majority then holds that without prompt notice, CR 11 sanctions are unwarranted. Majority, at 198. With this, I agree. I cannot agree with the remainder of the majority opinion. The majority holds that the general notice in this case that attorneys' fees would be sought under the frivolous action asked to impose CR 11 sanctions. Unlike the frivolous action statute, CR 11 is not a fee-shifting rule. Instead, it permits a wide range of sanctions. Furthermore, the rule requires proof of elements that are not required in order to prevail under the frivolous action statute. I would hold that the notice required under CR 11 is notice that CR 11 sanctions, not a request for attorneys' fees based on some other rule or statute, are going to be sought. Further, I would hold that such notice must be given within a reasonable time of the discovery of the allegedly sanctionable conduct. Here Mr. Biggs had notice that attorneys' fees would be sought under the frivolous action statute early in the proceeding. He was given no notice that sanctions would be requested under CR 11 until many years after the pleading in question was signed. That is not fair by any standard and I would disallow it. While the majority takes pains to emphasize that CR 11 is not a fee-shifting statute, it equates the remedy imposed under the rule with that available under RCW 4.84.185. In essence, the majority allows the trial court and Mr. Vail to circumvent the holding in Biggs I, and to get around RCW 4.84.185, by saying that attorneys' fees may be awarded based on a party's filing of a frivolous claim. This is precisely what we said was not allowed in Biggs I. Because I would reverse the trial court's latest ruling on attorneys' fees, I dissent from the majority opinion. BRACHTENBACH and SMITH, JJ., concur with ANDERSEN, C.J.