Court Opinion

ID: 9482999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:07:27.695935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:20.940302
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Appellate judges are rarely in a position to discern the real life scenario in a summary judgment case such as this one. My conjecture is that Colosi was a “rough diamond” who apparently served his masters well in a high position in this family business for some years. Eventually, with advancing years he became too rough (and possibly less of a diamond) for their finer sensibilities and they dumped him at age fifty-seven. Although I think the case very close — particularly given one totally off-the-wall affidavit — I can join the majority on the merits.
With respect to sanctions, however, one of the tests under Rule 38 is “appropriateness.” Here, on the contract claim, it seems to me there was a moral obligation to pay: the company admits that it promised the money and only an accounting error caused the shortfall. Under these circumstances, sanctions are inappropriate and, as to them, I respectfully dissent.