Court Opinion

ID: 9473905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:43:07.666888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:48.456821
License: Public Domain

FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
While concurring in the result reached by the majority, I cannot agree that this case “presents the paradigm of when Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate.” Ante at 265. I do not find this to be a case where an attorney advanced an argument that was directly refuted by clear, objectively verifiable facts, but rather a case where an attorney offered a contention concerning his client’s subjective intent that was not clearly supported by his client’s deposition testimony. Given the subjectivity involved in determining in hindsight why a party took a certain course of action, I believe that this appeal presents a fairly close question as to whether the appellant’s argument about Kulovitz’s intent was “well grounded in fact” for purposes of Rule 11. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that under our very limited scope of review, the district court’s imposition of Rule II sanctions cannot be deemed an abuse of discretion.