Appellate Law

CA1: District Court made all sorts of errors in awarding sanctions

By S. COTUS

Jensen v. Phillips Screw, No. 07-2766 vacates sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for vexatious litigation, because the District Court found the law firm in a class action had not completely investigated just what was up with the proposed class representatives (some wanted to settle, and some used a different kind of screw).  The District Court didn't hold an oral argument or an evidentiary hearing, despite being asked.  The First points out that "A sanctions order must be evaluated on appeal in light of the record that was before the district court at the time the order issued."  But that there is no entitlement to oral argument.

Whatever the case, this seems like a typical case where a District Court got its hate on for a lawyer. 

The First then holds that sanctions under 28 USC 1927, were not available for whatever is in a complaint.

On the other sanctions counts, the First says it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to reject one party's view of event because it is hearsay, but credit another hearsay account.  Likewise, the First says that the District Court erred by considering that a declaring that the law firm conceded an issue when in fact it was only responding to the opposing argument's specific accusations.  Then, the First rejects another sanctions count that was based on those sanctions counts.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on October 29, 2008 (boomark / email).