Court Opinion

ID: 9482795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:00:50.199771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:12.656585
License: Public Domain

Judgment for the Court filed PER CURIAM.
JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
This cause came to be heard on appeal from a decision by the District Court. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.R. 14(c).
Counsel challenge the award of Rule 11 and Rule 38 sanctions against them, as directed by a previous panel. The law of the case doctrine bars this challenge. See, e.g., Melong v. Micronesian Claims Comm’n, 643 F.2d 10, 17 (D.C.Cir.1980). We see no clear error combined with manifest injustice, nor does Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990), constitute intervening law on the Rule 11 issue. The prior panel determined that the District Court had found a Rule 11 violation, see Saltany v. Reagan, 886 F.2d 438, 440 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 932, 110 S.Ct. 2172, 109 L.Ed.2d 501 (1990), and there is no basis under Cooter or any other precedent for us to reconsider this determination. Moreover, Cooter makes clear that sanctions must be imposed once a violation is found. See 110 S.Ct. at 2454, 2460.
Counsel also argue for a nonmonetary Rule 11 sanction, but the District Court considered this possibility and reasonably exercised its discretion to impose a fine instead.
Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the decision is affirmed.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.R. 15.
A separate dissenting statement filed by Circuit Judge WALD is attached.