Inherent Power of the Court Sanctions Reach a Broad Spectrum of Conduct, As Shown in the Article.
Gregory P. Joseph, a New York City attorney, has written an article, “Developments in the Federal Law of Sanctions,” which has been published in the April 12, 2011 edition of The United States Law Week. It explores evolving issues of interest with respect to federal sanctions. Here is a summary of what is discussed in this informative article:
*Whether inherent power of the court sanctions extend to administrative tribunal abuse unless the abuse bears a sufficient nexus to the federal court proceedings (FDIC v. MAXXAM Inc., 523 F.3d 566, 591, 593 (5th Cir. 2008) [no]; Children’s Ctr. for Devel. Enrichment v. Machle, 612 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2010) [no]; Wachovia Bank v. Tien, 2010 U.S.App. LEXIS 26089 at *13-*14 (11th Cir. Dec. 22, 2010) [yes]; Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2010) [yes]).
*Whether an offender’s inability to pay is a legitimate consideration for § 1927 sanction imposition, with two appellate courts concluding it is not (Shales v. General Chauffeurs Sales Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 330, 557 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2009); Hamilton v. Voise Cascade Express, 519 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2008); Roth v. Spruell, 388 F.App’x 830 (10th Cir. 2010).)
*Whether there is viarious liability on the part of a law firm for § 1927 violations (BDT Prods. Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l Inc., 602 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2010) [no]; FM Indus. Inc. v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 614 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2010) [no].)
*Whether there is vicarious law firm liability where sanctions are imposed under the inherent power of the court (Lockary v. Kayfetz, 974 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1992) [yes]; Mroz v. Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1995) [yes]; Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs. v. Scivantage, 564 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2009) [no, unless independent evidence of law firm’s bad faith].)
*Whether inherent power sanctions of the court can be extended to arbitration misconduct (Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 619 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2010) [no]; but see First Auto. Ser. Corp. v. First Colonial Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66974 (M.D. Fla. June 16, 2010) [arbitrators can award bad faith litigation sanctions].)
*Whether FRCP 30(d)(2) attorney’s fees sanctions can be awarded against clients and/or their counsel for egregious deposition behavior (Craig v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 384 F.App’x 531 (8th Cir. 2010) [yes; attorney]; GMAC Bank v. HTFC Corp., 248 F.R.D. 182, 197, 198 n.22 (E.D. Pa. 2008) [yes; passive acquiescence by client; 30(d)(2) sanctions levied against both lawyer and client].)
Comments