Opinion ID: 164589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Imposition of Sanctions Against Mr. Montgomery

Text: 88 Mr. Montgomery next challenges the district court's imposition of sanctions for his counsel's allegedly inadvertent attempt to file an amended complaint that differed from the one attached to the motion for leave to file it. 89 We review for abuse of discretion all aspects of a trial court's imposition of sanctions for rules violations. Butler v. Biocore Med. Techs., Inc., 348 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir.2003). Rule 11 applies to the presentation of pleading[s], written motion[s], or other paper[s] to the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). Mr. Montgomery's counsel suggests that his unintentional filing of a draft amended complaint was a `mistake[]' that could have happened in any office. Aplt's Br. at 59. 90 Apparently, the district court, in an order dated Feb. 27, 2001, found that Mr. Montgomery's and/or his counsel was deliberately misleading the Court and Defendants as to the intended amendment.... Plaintiff's bad faith in the manner in which he sought the amendment precludes permitting the Amended Complaint to stand. Aple Henry's Br. at 27 (quoting Order, dated Feb. 27, 2001). The district court received for filing an amended complaint that differed materially from the one originally attached to the motion to amend. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it struck the amended complaint and made a finding of bad faith. 91 In addition, we note with particular disapproval that the parties failed to attach the district court's February 27, 2001 order to the briefs submitted in this court. See 10TH CIR. R. 28.2(A) (requiring appellant's brief to include, among other things, copies of all pertinent written findings, conclusions, opinions, or orders of a district judge even though they are also included in the appendix); see also 10th Cir. R. 28.2(B) (requiring appellee's brief to include all the rulings required by (A), in the event that appellant's brief fails to include them). Even more distressing is the appellant's counsel's apparent failure to include the order in the appendix in violation of 10th Cir. R. 10.3(C), or, at the very least, to cite the record so that we might review the order.