Hirschfeld v. Spanakos
| Decision Date | 03 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 2079,2079 |
| Citation | 104 F.3d 16 |
| Parties | Abraham HIRSCHFELD and Hirschfeld for Congress Citizens Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. George SPANAKOS, Seymour Sheldon, Weyman Carey, Vincent J. Cuttita, Douglas A. Kellman, Ferdinano C. Marchi, Paul Mejias, Gertrude Strohm, Vincent J. Vellella, Kathleen Wagner, individually and in their capacity as members of the Board of Elections of the City of New York and City of New York, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 96-7094. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Paul A. Victor, New York City (Charles Haydon, Flora Edwards, Dublirer, Haydon, Straci & Victor, New York City, of counsel), for Appellants.
Ellen Ravitch, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of New York (Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, Stephen J. McGrath, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York City, of counsel), for Appellees.
Before: MESKILL, CALABRESI and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by Abraham Hirschfeld and Hirschfeld For Congress Citizens Committee (Hirschfeld) from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kaplan, J., dismissing their remaining claim against the New York City Board of Elections (Board) for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellants claim they were damaged by the Board's attempts to keep Hirschfeld off the ballot for the 1992 election to the United States House of Representatives. Earlier the district court dismissed all of Hirschfeld's claims except the one relating to the Board's filing of a motion for a stay of Judge Knapp's order, Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections, 799 F.Supp. 394 (S.D.N.Y.1992), placing Hirschfeld on the ballot. Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 871 F.Supp. 190 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (). The earlier dismissed claims are not before us on this appeal.
In the original action, Judge Knapp held that Hirschfeld's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution had been violated by the Board's treatment of Hirschfeld's nomination petitions for the congressional election in November 1992, and ordered the Board to accept the petitions, thereby placing Hirschfeld on the ballot. Hirschfeld, 799 F.Supp. at 395. The judgment was filed on September 30, 1992. The Board's staff, in apparent acquiescence, indicated to the Hirschfeld supporters that Hirschfeld's name would be on the ballot. Then, twenty-nine days later and six days before the November 4 election, the Board filed a notice of appeal and a motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Knapp's order.
The papers filed by Hirschfeld on October 29 in response to the motion for the stay put the Board on notice that Hirschfeld would seek attorney's fees as a sanction for the timing of the stay motion. At oral argument of the stay motion on October 30, Judge Winter, speaking for the panel, made it clear that sanctions would be imposed on the Board for bad faith in failing to seek a stay in the district court as required by Fed.R.App.P. 8(a) and for filing the stay motion in the Court of Appeals at the eleventh hour. We denied the motion for a stay from the bench and in the written opinion that followed, imposed double costs and attorney's fees of $500 on the Board as sanctions. Hirschfeld v. Board of Elections, 984 F.2d 35, 40-41 (2d Cir.1993). In that written opinion, we stated:
The Board of Elections filed its motion for a stay pending appeal in complete disregard for Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Board of Elections timed the eleventh hour notice of appeal and motion for a stay so that, if we had granted the stay, Hirschfeld's name would have been off the ballot and the timing of the appeal, even if expedited, would not allow enough time to restore his name to the ballot if we affirmed the district court decision. Additionally, the Board of Elections' claim of irreparable injury was meritless because any injury in the absence of the stay would be self-inflicted. For these reasons, the motion for a stay was "entirely without color" and was clearly made for "improper reasons," thus meeting the Browning Debenture Holders' [Comm. v. DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078, 1088 (2d Cir.1977) ] "bad faith" test.
Id. at 40. The Board never pursued its appeal and later withdrew it without prejudice by stipulation on January 4, 1993.
In the meantime, the election was held, and although Hirschfeld's name was on the ballot, he received only one percent of the vote.
A year and a half later, Hirschfeld brought the present suit claiming, among other things, that he was damaged by the bringing of the bad faith motion for a stay. The Board claimed immunity from liability under the Noerr Doctrine, Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961), and that Hirschfeld was not damaged by the Board's action.
On December 28, 1995, the district court dealt with the only claim not dismissed earlier, the claim that Hirschfeld was damaged by the Board's stay motion. Judge Kaplan found that the Board's motion for a stay pending appeal was objectively baseless, satisfying the first Noerr prong. However, he then found that the second Noerr prong was not met because Hirschfeld failed to prove that the Board's motion was made in bad faith. The court concluded that the members of the Board, in deciding to pursue the appeal, sought to have Judge Knapp's order reversed on the merits, rather than to use the process of seeking a stay to derail Hirschfeld's candidacy.
Hirschfeld argued that the Board was collaterally estopped from disputing the bad faith issue by our earlier decision resulting in the imposition of sanctions. The decision to impose sanctions, Hirschfeld contended, necessarily included a determination of bad faith.
The district court held that the earlier imposition of sanctions by this Court did not require a finding that the second Noerr prong was met because the Board did not The district court also ruled that Hirschfeld failed to prove any compensable damages because he would not have won the election. Thus, the court held that, if liability had been proven, it would have awarded six cents in nominal damages to Hirschfeld.
receive a full and fair opportunity in which to contest the issue of bad faith due to the summary nature of sanction proceedings. The district court also held that our bad faith determination was not "necessary" to our ruling in the sense required for preclusive effect. Finally, the district court held that bad faith in the sanctions context differs materially from bad faith in the Noerr context. The court held that the Board did not act with the purpose of using the stay application process to keep Hirschfeld off the ballot, rather the Board sought to obtain the proper result of the motion for a stay, a stay pending appeal.
The district court dismissed the suit. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.
We review a district court's finding of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and conclusions of law or mixed questions of fact and law de novo. See United States v. Moore, 968 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir.1992).
The Noerr immunity doctrine protects plaintiffs from damage claims based on the institution of a suit in certain situations. The doctrine originated in the antitrust area, but it has been extended to provide immunity from liability for bringing other suits.
To defeat Noerr immunity, two showings are required:
First, the lawsuit must be objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. If an objective litigant could conclude that the suit is reasonably calculated to elicit a favorable outcome, the suit is immunized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chauffeur's Training School, Inc. v. Spellings
...is that "there must have been `full and fair opportunity' for the litigation of the issues in the prior proceeding." Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks The School's strongest argument is that it was not permitted to cross-examine the Department's......
-
Mosdos Chofetz Chaim Inc v. Vill. Of Wesley Hills
...“threat letters,” and that Noerr-Pennington applies to “good faith litigation to protect a valid copyright”); Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1997) (declining to decide whether “the Noerr[-Pennington] immunity doctrine extends to non-commercial litigation” in a case alleging......
-
Owusu v. New York State Ins.
...for mere frustration or annoyance, see e.g., Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 909 F.Supp. 180, 184 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), rev'd on other grounds 104 F.3d 16 (2d Cir.1997), and he certainly cannot recover for harms supposedly caused by the filing of criminal charges by an unidentified third party, much les......
-
Beth Israel Med. v. Hori. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
...L.P., 267 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir.2001). Questions of law or mixed questions of fact and law are reviewed de novo. Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir.1997). This Court may "affirm an appealed decision on any ground which finds support in the record, regardless of the ground upon ......
-
Issues Relating to Parallel Litigation
...Dep’t Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). 220. See, e.g., Kremer, 456 U.S. at 466 n.6. 221. See, e.g., Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1997). 222. See, e.g., Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894-95, 899 (2008) (discussing the six specific exceptions to the rule tha......
-
Table of Cases
...Cal. 1987), 196 High Pressure Lamination Antitrust Litig., In re , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29431 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), 79 Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1997), 94 Hise v. Philip Morris Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (N.D. Okla. 1999), aff’d mem ., 208 F.3d 226 (10th Cir. 2000), 99 Hodges,......
-
Associations and Immunity for Government-Related Activities
...and state law claims); Int’l Broth. of Teamsters v. Philip Morris Inc., 196 F.3d 818, 826 (7th Cir. 1999) (RICO); Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1997) (Section 1983); Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Hollobow, 702 F.2d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 1983) (federal securities laws); Eurotech, In......
-
Application of Antitrust Principles to Business Tort Claims
...v. Fisher, 338 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2004); Manistee Town Ctr. v. City of Glendale, 227 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2000); Hirschfeld v. Spanakos, 104 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1997); Video Int’l Prod. v. Warner-Amex Cable Commc’ns, 858 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir. 1988); Gorman Towers v. Bogoslavsky, 626 F.2d 607, 614-......