Document: 496 U.S. 384 110 S.Ct. 2447 L.Ed.2d 359 COOTER & GELL, Petitionerv.HARTMARX CORPORATION, et al. No. 89-275. Argued Feb. 20, 1990. Decided June 11, Syllabus Respondents, the defendants in a District Court suit instituted by petitioner law firm on behalf of client, filed motion to dismiss complaint as having no basis fact and for sanctions under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11 ground that had not made sufficient prefiling inquiries support complaint's allegations. 11—after specifying, inter alia, an attorney's signature pleading constitutes certificate he has read it believes be well grounded legally tenable—provides that, if is signed violation Rule, court "shall" impose upon attorney or his client "an appropriate sanction, which may include order pay other party parties amount reasonable expenses incurred because filing pleading, . including fee." Following petitioner's notice voluntary dismissal 41(a)(1)(i), held were grossly inadequate imposed monetary its client. The Appeals affirmed, holding did divest jurisdiction rule motion; court's determination violated was substantially justified; appellant successfully defends award entitled recover fees appeal. therefore remanded case determine such enter award. Held: 1. A 41(a)(1)(i) does deprive district over motion. This view consistent with 11's purposes deterring baseless filings streamlining federal procedure contradicted anything 41(a)(1)(i). Pp. 393-398. (a) 41(a)(1) permits without prejudice only plaintiff files before defendant answer summary judgment never previously dismissed action "based same claim." Once responded complaint, stipulation "upon terms conditions deems proper." Moreover, "operates adjudication merits" claim. 393-394. (b) jurisdiction, invoked underlying supports consideration both action's merits arising from filing. As complete when paper filed, expunge violation. In comply Rule's requirement sanctions, must have authority consider whether there been signing regardless dismissal. 394-395. (c) language Rules compatible. Like imposition costs, fees, contempt sanction merits, but simply requires collateral issue, after principal suit's termination. Because signify determination, 41(a) right prejudice. 395-397. (d) are aimed at curbing abuses judicial system, their policies completely designed limit plaintiff's ability curb pre-existing state procedures allowing dismissals matter until entry verdict judgment. It codify any policy one free also secures file papers. If litigant could purge merely taking dismissal, would lose all incentive investigate more carefully serving 397-398. 2. appeals should apply abuse-of-discretion standard reviewing aspects decision proceeding. Petitioner's contention applied three-tiered review—a clearly erroneous findings historical fact, de novo counsel choice sanction—is rejected. 399-405. Appellate courts review selection standard, since, directing "appropriate" itself indicates empowered exercise discretion. absence contrary, adhere usual practice deferential standard. present context, standards indistinguishable: justified concluding abused discretion making factual finding erroneous. Furthermore, defer legal conclusions proceedings, since those rooted determinations rather than purely inquiries, court, familiar issues litigants, better situated marshal pertinent facts necessary fact-dependent based conclusion law, appellate 400-402. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 552, 108 2541, 101 490—which Court's Equal Access Justice Act "the position United States justified" reviewed abuse discretion—strongly applying unitary 403-404. Adoption supported goals deterrence process. best warranted light local bar's litigation practices, deference will enhance control duty reweighing evidence, discourage litigants pursuing marginal appeals. 404-405. Appeals' "applied correct offered substantial justification violation" adopted here. P. 405. 3. authorize fee 405-409. Neither provision 1's statement govern procedure—nor Advisory Committee Note suggests require payment proceedings. Respondents' interpretation covers "because filing" overbroad. sensible reading directly caused filing—logically, trial level—and considers defending appeal arise appeal, initial complaint. 2461-2462. 38—which authorizes "award just damages single double costs appellee" determining frivolous—places natural scope. frivolous, often given broad 38 gives ample expenses. However, appellee appellant's fees. 407. Limiting scope accords discouraging meritorious appeals, many valid challenges might unsuccessful appellants routinely required very originally shoulder appellee's undesirable effect encouraging additional satellite litigation, losing subjected remand again Even disallowing likely exceed sanction's amount, risk expending value one's while concomitant American i.e., prevailing ordinarily collect fee. 408-409. 277 U.S.App.D.C. 333, 875 F.2d 890 (CADC 1989), affirmed part reversed part. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous respect Parts I, II, IV, V, Part III, REHNQUIST, C.J., BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, concurring dissenting part, post, p. 409. Stephen A. Saltzburg, Charlottesville, Va., petitioner. Richard J. Favretto, Washington, D.C., respondents. O'CONNOR Court. 1 presents three related application Procedure: who voluntarily pursuant Procedure; what sanctions; awards sanction.* 2 * 1983, Danik, Inc., owned operated number discount men's clothing stores area. Intercontinental Apparel, subsidiary respondent Hartmarx Corp., brought breach-of-contract against Danik Columbia. represented Cooter Gell (petitioner), counterclaim Intercontinental, alleging violations Robinson-Patman Act, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. § 13 seq. March 1984, granted and, February 1985, jury returned Danik's counterclaim. Both judgments Inc. 245 233, 759 959 (1985) (judgment order); 251 327, 784 1131 (1986) order). 3 While this proceeding, prepared two antitrust complaints subsidiaries, respondents Hart, Schaffner Marx Hickey-Freeman Co. One complaints, giving rise issue case, alleged nationwide conspiracy fix prices eliminate competition through exclusive retail agent uniform pricing scheme, unfair practices resale price maintenance territorial restrictions. App. 3-14. 4 Petitioner November 1983. Respondents moved alleging, among things, allegations fact. 11. opposition motion, affidavits setting forth research Id., 16-17, 22-23, 24-27. essence, consisted telephone calls salespersons New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, D.C. inferred store each major metropolitan area sold suits. 5 April became effective July dispense putative class members. effective, heard oral argument took advisement. 6 December 1987, 31/2 years hearing ordered submit requesting $61,917.99 Two months later, respondents' inquiry inadequate. Specifically, found regarding agency arrangements researched availability menswear. addition, limited survey four Eastern cities allegation retailer agreements every city States. Accordingly, determined $21,452.52 $10,701.26 Danik. 7 Columbia Circuit sanctions. (1989). Three 8 First, rejected divested After decisions Circuits considering concluded behind do permit escape dismissing unfounded case." 337, F.2d, 894. reasoned served punish deter, they secured proper functioning system "independent burdened party's interest recovering expenses." 338, 895. "be available circumstances notwithstanding private effort cut losses run out using 41 emergency exit." Ibid. 9 Second, arguments failed "cal[l] into doubt" fatal deficiencies identified Rather, "account [its] efforts d[id] confirm these shortcomings." 10 Third, considered claim Relying Westmoreland CBS, 248 255, 770 1168 (1985), II Enabling 28 2072, "prescribe general rules evidence cases (including proceedings Magistrates thereof) appeals." enact "abridge, enlarge modify substantive right." Pursuant authority, promulgated "govern suits civil nature." Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. We interpret according plain meaning, see Pavelic LeFlore Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 120, 123, 456, 458, 107 438 (1989), congressional authorization. provides, full: 12 "Every shall least record individual name, whose address stated. sign address. Except otherwise specifically provided statute, pleadings need verified accompanied affidavit. equity averments oath overcome testimony witnesses witness sustained corroborating abolished. signer paper; signer's knowledge, information, belief formed existing good faith extension, modification, reversal interposed improper purpose, harass cause unnecessary delay needless increase cost litigation. signed, stricken unless promptly omission called attention pleader movant. rule, own initiative, person it, party, both, paper, An current guided, understanding original version led revision. 1938 certify "that [the pleading]; intent defeat purpose rule." U.S.C., pp. 2616-2617 (1940 ed.). willfully "subjected disciplinary action." sham false [could] proceed though served." operation, deterrent expected drafters. See U.S.C.App., 575-576. problems old Rule. engendered confusion struck, conduct make liable available. reluctant measures attorneys, ibid., attorneys slow invoke Vairo, 11: Critical Analysis, 118 F.R.D. 189, 191 (1988). 14 To ameliorate problems, response concerns abusive abounded courts, amended Schwarzer, Sanctions Under 11—A Closer Look, 104 181 (1985). now clear central deter thus, Act's grant streamline administration courts. 576. imposes conducted papers tenable, "not purpose." signs substantiated penalized sanction." Such may, not, parties' ibid. Although spawn chill vigorous advocacy, give goal deterrence. III first question deprived states: 16 "(1) By Plaintiff; Stipulation. Subject provisions 23(e), 66, statute States, (i) time service adverse judgment, whichever occurs, (ii) appeared action. Unless stated stipulation, prejudice, except operates once 17 answer, 41(a)(1)(ii), proper" 41(a)(2). invokes second "action claim," 18 contends automatically deprives action, rendering powerless thereafter. Of Courts Second acts jurisdictional bar further Johnson Chemical Home Care Products, 823 28, 31 (1987). 19 purposes, weight enforce even 41(a)(1). Szabo Food Service, Canteen 1073, 1076-1079 (CA7 1987), cert. dism'd, 485 901, 1101, 99 229 (1988); Greenberg Sala, 822 882, 885 (CA9 1987); Muthig Brant Point Nantucket, 838 600, 603-604 (CA1 1988). "violation filed," supra, 1077, "[i]f rule," our view, nothing terminates 20 established longer pending. For example, want jurisdiction. 1919. indicated motions proceeding[s] supplemental proceeding request modification decree." Sprague Ticonic National Bank, 307 161, 170, 59 777, 781, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939). Thus, "years White Hampshire Dept. Employment Security, 455 445, 451, n. 13, 102 1162, 1166, 71 325 (1982). criminal charge likewise " 'a separate independent law' Bray 423 73, 75, 96 307, 309, 46 215 (1975), quoting Gompers Buck's Stove Range Co., 221 418, 492, 499, 55 797 (1911). arose terminated. Mine Workers, 330 258, 294, 67 677, 696, 91 884 (1947) ("Violations punishable basic become moot"); U.S., S.Ct., 502 (when main settled, moot, "of course power proceedings"). issue: process, so, appropriate. 21 assessment "[D]ismissal prejudice" "operat[e] merits," 41(a)(1), thus res judicata effect. tenable factually founded resulting nevertheless preclude refiling Indeed, prohibition (assuming "appropriate sanction" purposes), preclusion neither consequence (which prejudice) nor "term condition" placed unconditional), 22 foregoing Prior promulgation Rules, liberal procedural allowed nonsuits verdict, see, e.g., N.C.Code 1-224 (1943), La.Code Prac.Ann., Art. 491 (1942). generally Note, Right Plaintiff Take Voluntary Nonsuit Dismiss His Action Without Prejudice, 37 Va.L.Rev. 969 (1951). nonsuit rules. Bar Association, Proceedings Institute Cleveland, Ohio, 350 (1938) (Rule intended annoying being summoned successive actions then, settlement arrived at, requiring him another commenced leisure") (remarks Judge George Donworth, member Procedure); id., 309; C. Wright Miller, Practice 2363, 152 (1971). Where statutes common gave plaintiffs expansive suits, preserved narrow slice: permission during brief period significant commitment money. benefit take 23 policies, like language, limits litigant's actions, allows papers, care preparation subject sanction. noted above, Baseless puts machinery justice burdening individuals alike expense delay. careless quickly dismisses harm triggering already occurred. Therefore, violates useful misconduct. "stop, think papers." Amendments Procedure, 97 165, 192 (1983) (Letter Walter Mansfield, Chairman, Rules) (Mar. 9, 1982). 24 conclude establish deadline contemplate lengthy prior imposition, occurred case. "it anticipated normally end decided shortly thereafter." course, "adopt establishing timeliness standards," 454, 1168, deciding motions. IV 25 sufficiently rigorous Determining involves types issues. questions nature paper. Legal raised "warranted argument" changing Finally, tailor 26 specify applicable review. There is, however, precedent insufficient sufficient. See, International Brotherhood Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers America (Airline Div.) Association Flight Attendants, 274 370, 373, 864 173, 176 U.S.App.D.C., 261, 1174-1175. Ninth approach. That reviews Zaldivar Los Angeles, 780 823, 828 (1986). majority follow approach; rather, Kale Combined Ins. America, 861 746, 757-758 1988); Teamsters Local Union 430 Cement Express, 841 F. 2d 68 (CA3), denied, 488 848, 109 128, Stevens Lawyers Mutual Liability North Carolina, 789 1056, 1060 (CA4 1986); Thomas Capital Security Services, 836 866, 872 (CA5 1988) (en banc); Century Sutter, 837 247, 250 (CA6 Mars Steel Corp. Continental Bank N.A., 880 928, 933 1989); Adamson Bowen, 855 668, 673 (CA10 27 use different verbal formulas characterize review, actual disagreement narrow. No dispute exists 576 (suggesting "has particular acquainted"). agree contrary 52(a) ("Findings set aside erroneous, due regard opportunity judge credibility witnesses"). practice, "clearly erroneous" uphold falls within range permissible conclusions. Anderson Bessemer 470 564, 573-574, 105 1504, 1511-1512, 84 518 ("If account plausible viewed entirety, reverse convinced sitting trier weighed differently. views factfinder's between them cannot erroneous"); Inwood Laboratories, Ives 456 844, 857-858, 2182, 2190-2191, 72 606 When findings, 29 can confined factors Circuits, 399-400, commentators, Shaffer Sandler, Sanctions: Other Powers 14-15 (2d ed. (hereinafter Sandler); Judicature Society, Transition, Report Third Task Force 45-49 (Burbank, reporter 30 long difficulty distinguishing Pullman-Standard Swint, 273, 288, 1781, 1789, 66 (1982) ("Rule furnish guidance Nor we yet know principle unerringly distinguish conclusion"). Making distinctions particularly difficult context. Rather mandating questions, correct, determinations. reasonable, unreasonable prepare few days limitations runs. "to belief," some credibility. Issues involving matters. 52; Oregon State Medical 343 326, 332, 690, 695, 978 (1952). considerations involved context similar negligence, deferentially. 932; 2590 (1971); McAllister 348 19, 20-22, 75 6, 7-9, (1954) (holding negligence erroneous). Familiar mandated correction errors, firm, relying materially incorrect relevant law. "[I]f rest basis." 287, 1789. Icicle Seafoods, Worthington, 475 709, 714, 106 1527, 1530, 89 739 Appeals] believed unassailable, misapplied judgment"). 490 (1988), strongly Pierce, (EAJA), 2412(d) (1982 ed.), abuse-of-discretion. "substantially fact," 566, 2, 2550, EAJA "well fact" tenable. analogous, reasoning 32 equally 'as sound justice,' owed 'judicial actor positioned decide question.' 559-560, 2547, Miller Fenton, 474 104, 114, 88 405 depends greatly determinations, "better positioned" 560, 2547. ruling similarly specific. rulings 560-561, 2547-2548. According Court, invest energy unproductive task Government believing been." 561, 2548. Likewise, whether, plausible. "will either fail produce normal law-clarifying benefits come else strangely distort process" circuit "a most peculiar, secondhanded fashion." 33 flexibility resolve 'multifarious, fleeting, special, utterly resist generalization.' 561-562, taken unique "little susceptible generalization." involve "fact-intensive, close calls." Sandler 15. Contrary contentions, Underwood distinguishable mandatory: bearing how 34 adopting acquainted serve specific Deference front lines courts' them. process freeing reconsidering court; reducing 35 identification vary, Revisited, Harv.L.Rev. 1013, 1015-1017 Uniform Approach Sanctions, Yale L.J. 901 variation reasonableness inevitable. "Fact-bound resolutions otherwise." 936; 14-15. enough unlikely guidelines lower courts; clarify principles 36 accordance analysis analogous provisions, reject determination. necessarily evidence. Here, violation." 339, 896. Its affirmance liability adopt today. V reimbursed ultimately, award." 341, 898. accorded First Seventh 607, Hays Sony 847 412, 419-420 1988), conflicted Fourth Basch Westinghouse Electric 777 175 1985), 476 1108, 1957, 90 365 (1986), Orange Production Credit Assn. Frontline Ventures Ltd., 801 1581, 1582-1583 1986). On face, fee" interpreted 1, courts." activities outside 39 last sentence extending cover expenses, filing." argue, none lawsuit filed. line lead of" extend indefinitely. Cf. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Owens, Prosser Keeton Law Torts 41, 264 (5th 1984) ("In philosophical sense, consequences act go forward eternity. practical matter, responsibility causes so closely connected result significance imposing liability" (footnote omitted)). believe sensibly understood permitting filing, logically, level. steps defend baseless, attorneys' defense triggered plaintiff, court. 40 place litigants' governed 38, provides: "If appellee." frequently frivolous. Moore, B. Ward, Lucas, Moore's ¶ 238.03[2], 38-13, 38-14 1989) ("[W]here judging find frivolous"). frivolous sanctioned avoid somewhat anomalous result, together shifted onto upheld ultimately traced manner compelled appellees' discouraged. knowledge opponent's bravest Webster Sowders, 846 1032, 1040 ("Appeals orders deterred threats [of sanctions] judges"). included remand, 42 possible doubt proposition empirically correct. 51 1989). protect beneficiaries awarding do, noted, prospect meeting Beyond protection, loser." Alyeska Pipeline Service Wilderness 421 240, 95 1612, 1616, 44 141 (1975). Whenever level small, successful less fee-shifting appellate, applicable. "A movant entitlement breed litigation." 49. 43 affirm hold portion remanding reasons, below ordered. 45 facilitate just, speedy, inexpensive Properly understood, work conjunction prevent prosecution lawsuits. wastes resources good-faith reversal. decides continue withdraw today, refuses limited, valuable, purposes. focusing waste resources, vastly expands contours eviscerates creates malicious inconsistent mandate Act. 47 adoption up unscrupulous repetitive lawsuits merits. ways. providing precedes satisfies preventing repetitious, equal importance, absolute, unqualified adversary, framers preserve reconsider "during money." Ante, 397. rights then joinder commencement 48 theory, tandem. withdrawn predicate eliminated express authorization workload. persists meritless joins role play. matters legitimate concern deter. holds, burdens "courts delay." 398. assumption manifestly burden notation docket sheet said constitute burden. definition, means ruled claims. 50 observation burdened, irrelevant. abusing complaints. Whatever reputation incur, top product dispute,1 minimal noncompensable.2 More fundamentally, rulemakers judiciary: us create generalized divorced efficient processing frequency decrease dismissals. I issues.3 1927 lawyers multiplied vexatiously. responsive warrant law's affidavit lack cases, resources. But examine stretch beyond litigate unfortunate secure andin expensive Civ. Proc. 52 Despite changes left active ago, still wise precious asset professional reputation. Filing unmeritorious inevitably tarnishes asset. Those understand simple truth dealt state-law or, extreme unwarranted perversion raise petition certiorari here, decline it. Browning-Ferris Industries Kelco Disposal, 492 257, 2909, 219 telling primary injury point public attracted. Brief 19. rare properly incurs great preparing lock answering form 12(c) pleadings. join opinion.

Category: 8