Biggs v. Vail
Decision Date | 07 July 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 59938-6,59938-6 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | Patrick BIGGS, Appellant, v. David B. VAIL, dba David B. Vail & Associates, Respondents. |
Bertha B. Fitzer and William J. Rush, Tacoma, for respondents.
Attorney Patrick Biggs challenges the imposition of civil rule (CR) 11 sanctions by the trial court following the issuance of this court's mandate in Biggs v. Vail, 119 Wash.2d 129, 830 P.2d 350 (1992) (Biggs I). His arguments rest primarily on the assumption that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter such sanctions after the issuance of the mandate. We disagree, and hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court had authority to consider and impose CR 11 sanctions even after the substantive issues had been decided. However, we find that the trial court did not properly enunciate its reasons for imposing the sanction, and failed to limit the amount of the sanction to the fees spent in responding to the sanctionable conduct. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reconsider the sanctions imposed in light of this opinion.
This case began as a dispute over who should receive certain attorney fees earned by Biggs while employed by attorney David B. Vail. Biggs sued Vail, alleging four separate claims for relief, including breach of an employment contract. Following a bench trial, the court found in favor of Vail and against Biggs on his breach of contract claim, and found the other three claims to be frivolous. It also awarded Vail $25,000 in attorney fees under the frivolous lawsuit statute, RCW 4.84.185. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. However, this court reversed the award of attorney fees, finding that the action as a whole On June 10, 1992, the mandate in the above case issued. On October 14, 1992, Vail filed a motion in the trial court for sanctions against Biggs for violation of CR 11. Vail also asked for the same amount as was previously granted under RCW 4.84.185. The Superior Court granted Vail's motion and awarded sanctions in the amount of $25,000. The court noted that:
must be frivolous in order for fees to be awarded under RCW 4.84.185. Biggs I.
Well, I was appalled at the frivolity of Mr. Biggs' second, third and fourth claims, and they were shocking to this Court. In fact I was appalled at his initial claim, because it really, common sense would have demonstrated that he was wrong. And the Supreme Court has concurred, and the Court of Appeals concurred in all of my--
I think that there ought to be some compensation paid by Mr. Biggs for his involving the defendant, Vail, in all this litigation. I really do, Counsel, in all fairness, justice. And if I have the authority to grant relief to Mr. Vail, under CR 11, I will do it.
In its written order imposing sanctions, the trial court outlined the evidence it considered, but made no mention of the specific conduct which warranted sanctions. Biggs filed a motion for direct review which was accepted.
Before beginning an analysis of the specific issues raised by the parties, it will be helpful to review the contours of CR 11. CR 11 requires attorneys to date and sign all pleadings, motions and legal memoranda. Such signature constitutes the attorney's certification that:
to the best of the ... attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry it [the pleading, motion or memoranda] is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
CR 11. CR 11 was modeled after the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule 11), and federal decisions interpreting Rule The standard of appellate review for such sanctions is the abuse of discretion standard. Washington State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wash.2d 299, 338-39, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). In deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion, we must keep in mind that "[t]he purpose behind CR 11 is to deter baseless filings and to curb abuses of the judicial system". Bryant, 119 Wash.2d at 219, 829 P.2d 1099. CR 11 is not meant to act as a fee shifting mechanism, but rather as a deterrent to frivolous pleadings. Bryant, at 220, 829 P.2d 1099. Courts should employ an objective standard in evaluating an attorney's conduct, and the appropriate level of pre-filing investigation is to be tested by "inquiring what was reasonable to believe at the time the pleading, motion or legal memorandum was submitted". Bryant, at 220, 829 P.2d 1099. In deciding upon a sanction, the trial court should impose the least severe sanction necessary to carry out the purpose of the rule. Bryant, at 225, 829 P.2d 1099. CR 11 sanctions are not appropriate where other court rules more specifically apply. Fisons, 122 Wash.2d at 339-40, 858 P.2d 1054.
11 often provide guidance in interpreting our own rule. Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wash.2d 210, 218-19, 829 P.2d 1099 (1992). If it appears that CR 11 has been violated, "the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, shall impose upon the person ... an appropriate sanction" 1 which may include reasonable attorney fees and expenses. Former CR 11.
Biggs argues that the sanctions were inappropriate because they (1) exceeded the scope of the mandate, (2) violated the law of the case, (3) were untimely under the doctrine of laches, or (4) were waived because not timely brought. Application of either laches or waiver is inappropriate because a CR 11 motion is not a "cause of action" as contemplated by those doctrines. See Shrock v. Altru Nurses Registry, 810 F.2d 658, 662 (7th Cir.1987) ( ). The law of the case doctrine is intricately linked to the scope of the mandate; hence, these two issues could be considered Although we do not agree with Bigg's theories regarding this case, his protests are well taken. Normally, such late entry of a CR 11 motion would be impermissible, since without prompt notice regarding a potential violation of the rule, the offending party is given no opportunity to mitigate the sanction by amending or withdrawing the offending paper. See Bryant, 119 Wash.2d at 228, 829 P.2d 1099 (Andersen, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). Prompt notice of the possibility of sanctions fulfills the primary purpose of the rule, which is to deter litigation abuses.
together. However, the imposition of a CR 11 sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action. "Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue: whether the attorney has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate." Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). Hence, we do not find it necessary to parse the casual references to CR 11 in Biggs I, nor examine the scope of the mandate, in order to find that the trial court did have authority to enter CR 11 sanctions.
[Deterrence] is not well served by tolerating abuses during the course of an action and then punishing the offender after the trial is at an end. A proper sanction assessed at the time of a transgression will ordinarily have some measure of deterrent effect on subsequent abuses and resultant sanctions.
In re Yagman, 796 F.2d 1165, 1183 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (1986), mandamus granted sub nom. Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575, cert. denied sub nom. Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963, 108 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed.2d 390 (1987). See also William W. Schwarzer, Sanctions Under the New Federal Rule 11--A Closer Look, 104 F.R.D. 181, 197-98 (1985) ( ). Both practitioners and judges who perceive a possible violation of CR 11 must bring it to the offending party's attention as soon as possible. 2 Without such notice, CR 11 sanctions are unwarranted. Bryant, 119 Wash.2d at 224, 829 P.2d 1099.
The case at hand, however, differs from the usual situation in two crucial respects. First, Biggs was provided with general notice that sanctions were contemplated under RCW 4.84.185. Although the better practice is to inform counsel specifically of the nature of his or her misconduct and the possibility of CR 11 sanctions, we find that notice in general that sanctions are contemplated is sufficient for the later imposition of CR 11 sanctions. See Lepucki v. Van Wormer, 765 F.2d 86, 88 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Hyde v. Van Wormer, 474 U.S. 827, 106 S.Ct. 86, 88 L.Ed.2d 71 (1985). See also Shrock v. Altru Nurses Registry, 810 F.2d 658 (7th Cir.1987) ( ). In the case at hand, Biggs had notice that penalties were contemplated, although not the exact penalties ultimately imposed. Had a CR 11 motion been brought in the initial case, we have no doubt that it would have been granted, as it is unchallenged that three of the four causes of action in the underlying complaint were frivolous. The deterrent function of the rule would be vitiated were Biggs allowed to avoid sanctions simply because opposing counsel mislabeled his request.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brin v. Stutzman
...Brin's complaint. A trial court's decision to impose or deny CR 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wash.2d 193, 197, 876 P.2d 448 (1994); Madden v. Foley, 83 Wash.App. 385, 389, 922 P.2d 1364 (1996). A complaint may be subject to CR 11 sanctions if it lacks......
-
Ames v. Pierce Cnty.
...CR 11 requires attorneys to make certain guarantees when they sign pleadings, motions, briefs, and legal memoranda. Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wash.2d 193, 196, 876 P.2d 448 (1994). Specifically, an attorney's signature is his or her certification that the pleading, brief, or motion is “(1) ... wel......
-
Lee v. Jasman
...deny fees under CR 11. The purpose of CR 11 is to deter baseless filings and curb abuses of the judicial system. Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wash.2d 193, 197, 876 P.2d 448 (1994); Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wash.App. 748, 754, 82 P.3d 707 (2004). A filing is baseless if it is not well grounded in fact, ......
-
Building Industry Ass'n v. McCarthy
...and curb abuses of the judicial system. Skimming v. Boxer, 119 Wash.App. 748, 754, 82 P.3d 707 (2004) (citing Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wash.2d 193, 197, 876 P.2d 448 (1994)). A filing is baseless if it is not well grounded in fact, or not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for alt......
-
When Counsel Screws Up: the Imposition and Calculation of Attorney Fees as Sanctions
...Ins. Exch. and Ass'n v. Fisons Corp., 122 Wash. 2d 299, 339-40, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993); Biggs v. Vail (Biggs II), 124 Wash. 2d 193, 197, 876 P.2d 448 (1994). 10. 3 Karl B. Tegland, Wash. Prac. Series: Rules Practice at 445, 456 (6th ed. 2004) (noting the 1994 amendments to RAP 18.7 make it cl......
-
One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and the Batterers' Relentless Pursuit of Their Victims Through the Courts
...limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated."; see also Biggs v. Vail, 876 P.2d 448, 451 (Wash. 1994) (Rule 11 is "not meant to act as a fee shifting mechanism, but rather as a deterrent to frivolous 175. Fed. R. Civ. p. 11(......