Court Opinion

ID: 9490746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:53:23.57432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:17.635088
License: Public Domain

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.'
I must respectfully dissent from my colleague’s opinion. As noted in the majority opinion, the amendments to Rule 3(c) have liberalized its requirements. These amendments have effectively overruled Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988) which strictly construed the requirements of Rule 3(c), and would have mandated the present result. See, e.g., Flaherty v. Gas Research Institute, 31 F.3d 451, 458 (7th Cir.1994); Garcia v. Wash, 20 F.3d 608, 609 (5th Cir. 1994). Under the amended rule, however, a court is cautioned not to exalt form over *1009substance, as was done here. See Street v. City of Dearborn Heights, Mich., No. 93-1374,1994 WL 615672, at *6 (6th Cir. Nov. 4, 1994). Although the plaintiff’s attorney was not specifically named in the appeal, the appeal clearly referred to the March 19 judgment which imposed sanctions on both Maerki and Mireh. By strictly construing the notice of appeal, the court must dismiss the entire appeal because the claims involving Maerki have been abandoned. There are no reasons of finality or fairness that would require such a result and the court could easily construe the ambiguity in favor of Mireh. Accordingly, I would assert jurisdiction over this appeal and reverse the district court’s judgment.
Under the 1983 version of Rule 11 that was in effect during the sanctions imposed in this ease and which the district court utilized, the only sanctionable acts were the filing of signed papers by an attorney. Bodenhamer Building Corp. v. Architectural Research Corp., 989 F.2d 213, 219 (6th Cir.1993) (citing Jackson v. Law Firm of O’Hara, Ruberg, Osborne and Taylor, 875 F.2d 1224, 1229 (6th Cir.1989)). Rule 11 did not apply to the conduct of the attorney, but only those pleadings. Id. In the present case, the district court listed eleven findings which served as a basis for sanctions. (J.A at 64-70). The majority of these findings involved conduct by Mireh, rather than signed pleadings or papers and thus do not support an award of sanctions. As a result, it is impossible to separate the amount awarded that was based on findings supported by the 1983 version of Rule 11 and those findings that were based on invalid reasons. Therefore, I would reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the case with an instruction for the district court to adjust the sanction award using only permissible reasons under Rule 11.