In The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 24-1568 (2d Cir. Oct. 3, 2025), a 2-1 panel holds that Exxon could be sanctioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) for pressing the same grounds for removal that eight U.S. Courts of Appeals had rejected after the original removal. The dissent would hold thatContinue reading “Split Second Circuit Panel Affirms Attorney Fee Sanction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) Under “Unusual Circumstances,” Where Defendant Continued to Resist a Motion to Remand on Grounds That Federal Courts Widely Rejected After the Original Removal”
Tag Archives: Sanction
Second Circuit Clarifies Standards for Entry of Sanctions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), Noting a Possible Conflict with the Fifth Circuit
In Hoffer v. Tellone, No. 22-1377 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2025), the Second Circuit disaffirms the use of a “culpable state of mind” standard to impose discovery sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), requiring a specific “intent to deprive” standard, though it also reduces the burden of proof to preponderance of the evidence. TheContinue reading “Second Circuit Clarifies Standards for Entry of Sanctions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), Noting a Possible Conflict with the Fifth Circuit”
Alleged Shoving Match Between Counsel at a Deposition Leads to Sanctions and an Appeal to the Seventh Circuit
In Vega v. Chicago Bd. of Ed., No. 23-1183 (7th Cir. July 29, 2024), the Seventh Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part sanctions awarded by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority after an acrimonious deposition that allegedly led to a physical confrontation. “On July 13, 2017,Continue reading “Alleged Shoving Match Between Counsel at a Deposition Leads to Sanctions and an Appeal to the Seventh Circuit”
Defendant’s “Strategic Decision” to Withhold Challenge to Diversity Jurisdiction for Fifteen Months Warrants $62,556 Attorney’s Fee Sanction Under Court’s Inherent Powers
In J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. v. Oxford Mall, LLC, No. 22-12461 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit affirms in full an attorney’s fee sanction, awarded against a defendant that was found to have withheld information for fifteen months that the parties were not diverse for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 subject-matter jurisdiction.Continue reading “Defendant’s “Strategic Decision” to Withhold Challenge to Diversity Jurisdiction for Fifteen Months Warrants $62,556 Attorney’s Fee Sanction Under Court’s Inherent Powers”
Rule 11 Did Not Apply to Party Already Dismissed from the Action, Holds Eighth Circuit
In Martin Leigh PC v. Leyh, No. 22-1975 (8th Cir. Apr. 3, 2024), an Eighth Circuit panel holds that when a party had already been dismissed from an action for two months, it is too late to invoke Rule 11 by operation of the Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) 21-day safe-harbor provision. “On October 5,Continue reading “Rule 11 Did Not Apply to Party Already Dismissed from the Action, Holds Eighth Circuit”
Second Circuit Holds That Party Accused of Fabricating Evidence is Not Entitled to a Jury Trial on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Sanctions Motion
In Rossbach v. Montefiore Med. Cntr., No. 21-2084 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2023), the Second Circuit joins other courts in holding that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial to evaluate a claim of evidence fabrication and spoliation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The district court dismissedContinue reading “Second Circuit Holds That Party Accused of Fabricating Evidence is Not Entitled to a Jury Trial on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Sanctions Motion”
Fifth Circuit Holds Lawyer Could Be Sanctioned Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 For “Irrelevant Lines of Questioning” in Depositions
In Vaughan v. Lewisville Independent School Dist., No. 22-40057 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2023), the Fifth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s lawyer who asked four deponents about subject areas far afield of the dispute could be personally monetarily sanctioned for “unreasonable” and “vexatious” multipliction of the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. “Frank Vaughan filedContinue reading “Fifth Circuit Holds Lawyer Could Be Sanctioned Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 For “Irrelevant Lines of Questioning” in Depositions”
Class Counsel Incurs Seventh Circuit Criticism for Calling Objector’s Counsel A “Notorious Professional Objector” in a Brief
In Petri v. Stericycle, Inc. No. 20-2055 (7th Cir. May 19, 2022), the Seventh Circuit vacates and remands a 25% class-action fee award in a securities case, ordering reconsideration of evidence that lead class counsel benefitted from prior litigation and other factors, and—in a parting shot—criticizes lead counsel for going after the objector’s lawyer individuallyContinue reading “Class Counsel Incurs Seventh Circuit Criticism for Calling Objector’s Counsel A “Notorious Professional Objector” in a Brief”
Ninth Circuit Affirms Issuance of Arrest Warrant for Defendant Under Recalcitrant Witness Statute Who Failed to Respond to Paper Discovery
In Invesco High Yield Fund v. Jecklin, No. 21-15809 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2021), the Ninth Circuit affirms contempt sanctions against a foreign defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), the federal recalcitrant witness statute. The statute provides that when a witness refuses to testify or provide other information, the court “may summarily order his confinementContinue reading “Ninth Circuit Affirms Issuance of Arrest Warrant for Defendant Under Recalcitrant Witness Statute Who Failed to Respond to Paper Discovery”
Third Circuit Sanctions Lawyer for Bad Cut-and-Paste Job
In Conboy v. United States Small Business Admin., No. 20-1726 (3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2021), the Third Circuit issues a Fed. R. App. P. 38 sanction against a lawyer whose appellate brief “was essentially a copy of the one he filed in the District Court.” To underscore the point, the panel attaches a red-lined copyContinue reading “Third Circuit Sanctions Lawyer for Bad Cut-and-Paste Job”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 