Opinion ID: 197192
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Appeal: Fees and Sanctions

Text: 22 Principal O'Neill and the School Committee appeal from the court's denial of their motions for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and for attorney's fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 23 The procedural background is brief. In their answers to the complaint, in early 1994, appellants invoked violation of Rule 11. Nothing transpired on the sanctions front until April of 1995, when appellants sent counsel for Anderson a letter protesting the allegations and serving notice that, if trial were to take place, they would pursue their Rule 11 remedy. The next event took place on February 27, 1996, shortly after the court had directed the verdicts, when appellants filed a new Rule 11 motion. This, however, was filed without having waited for 21 days after service before filing, as required by § c(1)(A) of the rule. It was denied on March 15 and on March 18 an amended motion, with additional allegations, was served; it was filed on April 16, 1996. In mid-March motions were filed under §§ 1927 and 1988. All were denied by the court without hearing or comment in late March and early April. 24 Appellants base their claims for sanctions on what they term unfounded and uninvestigated allegations of race discrimination on the part of O'Neill; allegations of systemic underrepresentation of blacks in Lewenberg School and elsewhere, together with discriminatory policies and customs resulting from reckless indifference on the part of the city and the School Committee; misleading and erroneous damages evidence on the part of Anderson; and allegations of false accusations of alcohol and drug abuse, coercion of young female students, and perjury on the part of O'Neill. 25 Anderson merely presents the same facts in haec verba from his main brief, reargues that the district court was in error in directing the verdicts, contends that he had established prima facie cases on every count, and points out that he dismissed claims for disparate impact and municipal (Monell ) liability. He cited no cases. He dismisses appellants' motions as incomprehensible, not timely, violating every 'safe harbor' rule known, and, generally, ... a waste of everybody's time.The questions which this background presented to the court involved the procedural one of timeliness and undue delay of the various motions and the substantive ones whether reasonable inquiry was made by plaintiff's counsel, Ryan v. Clemente, 901 F.2d 177 (1st Cir.1990), and whether claims were unfounded or were so revealed as the case progressed. The motions also implicitly involved the allocation of responsibility, if any existed, between plaintiff and his counsel. The only question which faces us at this juncture, however, is whether we have enough basis to affirm, to modify, or to reverse. 26 We are therefore required to focus sharply on our own precedents in order to determine whether the district court in denying sanctions and fees in this case should have accompanied those decisions with some explanation. We tread very carefully in this area, for the district court is entitled not only to the ordinary deference due the trial judge, and additional deference in the entire area of sanctions, but extraordinary deference in denying sanctions. 27 Appellants make the broad argument, based on a blanket observation in Metrocorps, Inc. v. Eastern Mass. Junior Drum & Bugle Corps Ass'n., 912 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1990), that, whether or not sanctions are ordered or denied, reasons must be given, if meaningful review is to be had. In Metrocorps, sanctions were sought because of a party's failure to comply with discovery requirements. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, however, specifies that sanctions may be avoided only if substantial justification is shown. We held that [t]he clear language of the rule imposes a duty on the district court. Id. at 2. We also addressed the alternative ground for sanctions, Rule 11, and cited Morgan v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 901 F.2d 186, 195 (1st Cir.1990), which in turn cited Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., Inc., 775 F.2d 1440, 1446-47 (11th Cir.1985) for the general proposition that a district court must state reasons so that a meaningful review may be had. We then went on to say, [i]f this is the district court's burden when sanctions are imposed, it follows naturally that a similar obligation exists where, as here, sanctions are requested by one party, but denied by the court. 901 F.2d at 195. 28 But Carlucci itself not only addressed the unexplained positive imposition of sanctions, but a discovery sanction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 limited to reasonable expenses caused by the failure to obey an order. Understandably, the appellate court felt it needed some basis on which to review the reasonableness of the amount. Moreover, in Morgan, where the hospital's motion for fees had been denied without reasons, we prefaced our analysis with the observation that From the record before us, we are unable to determine the basis of the district court's denial of the motion. 901 F.2d at 195. We added that the fee decision must both be explained and be supported by the record. Id. These statements, of course, were sufficient to have justified our action in requiring reasons, without resort to the Carlucci blanket prescription. 29 Later, in the same year, in Figueroa-Ruiz v. Alegria, 905 F.2d 545, 549 (1st Cir.1990), we remanded a case in which Rule 11 sanctions had been denied, because we found the decision to be capable of bearing a number of meanings. We added: 30 While we do not hold that the district court must make findings and give explanations every time a party seeks sanctions under Rule 11, we do require a statement when the reason for the decision is not obvious or apparent from the record. 31 We then cited, with a see, Morgan. 32 Then came Metrocorps, with no reference to Figueroa-Ruiz. Finally, in Witty v. Dukakis, 3 F.3d 517 (1st Cir.1993), where the district court had, early on, denied a fee application under § 1988 as untimely, and later denied without opinion two subsequent motions to revisit the issue, we said: 33 So long as a district court's reason for denying fees or monetary sanctions is (1) well founded, (2) sufficient to the stated end, and (3) apparent on the face of the record, a reviewing tribunal will not insist on unnecessary punctilio. (Citing, among others, Figueroa-Ruiz and Morgan, but not Metrocorps.) Id. at 521. 34 We observed that it was perfectly clear that the district court's thinking had not changed between the first and last two decisions. Id. 35 From these precedents, we discern the continuing basic theme that although the rationale for a denial of a motion for fees or sanctions under Rule 11, § 1927, or § 1988 should be unambiguously communicated, the lack of explicit findings is not fatal where the record itself, evidence or colloquy, clearly indicates one or more sufficient supporting reasons. The occasional statements referring to an inflexible requirement for explicit findings in every case do not reflect our present considered judgment. 36 Reflection reveals that appellate review of denials of such motions calls for somewhat more restraint than review of positive actions imposing sanctions and shifting fees. In the latter event the decision of the trial court is a relatively rare and always deliberate event. In the former event, motions are often perfunctorily made and generally denied. To require in run-of-the-mill cases, where it is obvious that the conduct of a party and his attorney was within the bounds of reason, decency, and competence, that the trial court stop and frame specific findings would be to add irresponsibly to its already considerable burden. 37 In this case, however, a number of factors coalesce to convince us of the need for help from the district court. In the first place, we need its assessment of the weight of arguments as to untimeliness and undue delay in the pursuit of Rule 11 sanctions. We are also unable to ascertain without such help whether reasonable inquiry was made of some of the charges levied by plaintiff. Should available public records have indicated an absence of systemic recklessness and discrimination in the Boston school system? Were the alleged victims (Allen and O'Connor) of plaintiff's advances interviewed? Why were they, although present at the courthouse, not called as witnesses by plaintiff? Similar questions are raised in our minds as to Stutman, the union representative, Philogene, who initiated the complaint of alcohol abuse, other teachers, police and the Department of Safety. Were plaintiff's explanations concerning the missing tape consistent and credible? 4 38 Finally, what weight should be given, if any, to prior court-administered warnings to counsel. One was our own case, Cummings v. Hanson, 1995 WL 764363, 1995 U.S.App.Vol.LEXIS 36978 (December 1995), in which we affirmed sanctions against this plaintiff's attorney for bringing a claim in the wrong forum and cautioned him against repetition. And although the Massachusetts Appeals Court decision in Doe v. Nutter, McClennen & Fish, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 137, 668 N.E.2d 1329, 1331 (1996), affirming sanctions and awarding double costs against plaintiff's counsel in the instant case for a frivolous appeal, was issued subsequent to the actions of the district court below in denying sanctions, both a Massachusetts Superior Court justice and a single justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court had previously imposed sanctions against plaintiff's attorney for filing suit against defendants although he was aware that he did not have a viable cause of action. 39 In raising these points, we do not profess to have an informed opinion. Indeed, that is why we feel it necessary to remand the case so that the district court may review its decisions on the several motions for sanctions and fees, assess any responsibility as between plaintiff and counsel, and make known to us its reasons for the actions taken. 40 In the appeal on the merits (No. 96-1443), the judgment is affirmed. 41 In the fee appeal (No. 96-1578), we adopt the procedure of presently retaining jurisdiction and remanding to the district court for the limited purpose of revisiting the motions for sanctions and fees. Cf. United States v. Quinones, 26 F.3d 213, 219 (1st Cir.1994). 42 The court may either (a) vacate the judgment and conduct such proceedings as it deems necessary to reach a final conclusion or (b) reaffirm the judgment previously imposed, filing with the clerk of the district court its written rationale. The court may, but need not, request written submissions and/or argument from counsel and/or convene a hearing for the purpose of deciding which course to pursue. 43 The district court shall notify the clerk of this court within sixty days of the date hereof as to which option it chooses. In the meantime, we retain appellate jurisdiction. 44 It is so ordered. 45 Costs in No. 96-1443 awarded to the School Committee and O'Neill.