In re Engle Cases
Decision Date | 18 October 2017 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 3:09–cv–10000–J–WGY–JBT |
Citation | 283 F.Supp.3d 1174 |
Parties | IN RE: ENGLE CASES |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Andrew S. Brenner, Javier Angel Reyes, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Eileen Tilghman Moss, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Miami, FL, Antonio C. Castro, Infante Zumpano, LLC, Coral Gables, FL, Benjamin H. Hill, III, Hill Ward Henderson, PA, Tampa, FL, Charlie Easa Farah, Jr., Farah & Farah, PA, Gregory H. Maxwell, Cronin & Maxwell, LLC, Janna B. McNicholas, The Wilner Firm, PA, Jacksonville, FL, David M. Monde, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Heather H. Wong, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Henry G. Garrard, III, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, PC, Athens, GA, John J. Rimes, III, Attorney General's Office, Tallahassee, FL, John M. Walker, Atlanta, GA, for Engle Cases.
WILLIAM G. YOUNG, TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, and ROY B. DALTON, JR., DISTRICT JUDGES1 :
Table of Contents
Introduction ...––––
Part I.G: The Denton Juror...––––
Part I.H: Case Dismissals in 2012 and 2013 and Appointment of Special Master...––––
Part I.I: The 2016 Report and Recommendation...––––
Part I.J: The December 2016 Hearing...––––
Part II.A: Constitutional Requirements...––––
Part II.B: Rule 11 Procedural Requirements...––––
Part III.D: Rule 11's Application to Other Cases...––––
Part VI.A: Monetary Sanctions...––––
Part VI.B: Apportionment of Fault...––––
Part VI.C: Non–Monetary Sanctions...––––
Conclusion ...––––
[A]ttorneys are the filter upon which courts rely to maintain the integrity of, and trust in, our judicial process.
Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306, 1316 (11th Cir. 2010). On the rare occasion when attorneys undermine that integrity and trust, there must be consequences. This is one of those rare occasions.
Of the thousands of "Engle-progeny"2 product liability actions over which this Court has presided ("Federal Engle Actions "), the majority had to be resolved through a painstakingly piecemeal culling process. While the judicial books are closed for the litigants in the Federal Engle Actions, this matter cannot be concluded until The Wilner Firm, P.A. and Farah & Farah, P.A. (collectively, "Counsel ") and their principals, Norwood Wilner ("Wilner ") and Charlie Farah ("Farah "),3 are held to account for the immense waste of judicial resources and contempt shown for the judicial process occasioned by maintaining over a thousand non-viable claims. Counsel evinced a conscious disregard of their professional obligation to properly investigate such claims, obtain authorizations to file from clients, and—most importantly—communicate honestly with this Court. With the litany of litigation abuses recited here, the Court could never, in good conscience, sanction another lawyer in the future for failing to investigate a single claim if Counsel's failure here to investigate hundreds of actions were to be passed over, thereby implying that Counsel's indifference toward their professional obligations was acceptable because there were "just too many" potential claimants to do the job properly. The Court will not shrink from the formidable and unpleasant task of scrutinizing these filings individually and invoking the full authority of the judiciary, so as to renew the clarion call to the Bar that professionalism matters.
In January 2008, Wilner and Farah filed approximately 3,700 Engle-progeny complaints in the Florida state and federal courts. The complaints alleged personal injury, wrongful death, and loss-of-consortium claims related to cigarette smoking. As it turns out, many of the plaintiffs never authorized Wilner and Farah to file a suit. Some had barely heard of them. Dozens did not meet the basic requirements for maintaining an Engle-progeny claim (some of the "personal injury" plaintiffs never even smoked, for example). Over 500 "personal injury" plaintiffs were actually people who had died well before Counsel filed the complaints. Indeed, one of the "personal injury plaintiffs" had died 29 years earlier.
The Court discovered these defects in 2012 only after it sent questionnaires directly to the named plaintiffs—over Counsel's objections. Before the questionnaire process, Wilner and Farah had insisted the Court need not inquire into the status of the plaintiffs; that a questionnaire process would not yield useful information; that there was no sizeable group of cases appropriate for dismissal; and that they could certify in accordance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the complaints were viable. It was this obstructive, deceptive, and recalcitrant behavior that, in combination with the hundreds of frivolous complaints, compelled the Court to initiate sanctions proceedings.
As judges, we are properly cautioned against using 20/20 hindsight in evaluating the actions of lawyers in the context of unprofessional conduct. We are insulated from the hurly-burly of the practice of law, the press of client demands, the call of time sheets to log, and the occasional dictatorial demands of the Court. So it is, with that caution in mind, that a full explanation of the factors that motivate us to impose sanctions upon Wilner and Farah against the unique backdrop of these "tobacco cases" is warranted. The Court's findings here are drawn from a seven-month investigation by the Court's Special Master (the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida), careful consideration of the Special Master's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2147 ("2016 R & R ")), Counsel's objections to the 2016 R & R (Doc. 2165 ("Objections ")), and the Special Master's Response to the Objections (Doc. 2170 ("Response ")), comprising almost 600 pages of briefing and thousands of pages of exhibits.4
The Court also has the benefit of a 2014 Eleventh Circuit opinion affirming the dismissal of over 500 Engle personal injury actions that Wilner and Farah had filed on behalf of dead people, which noted that:
[T]he root of the problem in all these [Engle ] cases is simple. Back in 2008, when these cases were originally filed, the law firm that brought them [Wilner and Farah] didn't have the time or resources required to fully investigate all the complaints (the firm in question filed claims on behalf of over 4,000 individuals). As a result, problem after problem cropped up once the District Court started going through the inventory of cases: there were personal injury claims filed on behalf of deceased smokers, wrongful death claims filed by "survivors" of smokers who were still living, cases filed as a result of "clerical errors," multiple cases filed for the same person, cases filed for people the law firm had no contact with, claims that had already been adjudicated by another court, cases filed for people who didn't want to pursue a lawsuit, and claims filed long after the relevant limitations period had run. Over and over, plaintiffs' counsel explained that these problems were the result of the unique logistical difficulties involved in managing so many individual lawsuits. And over and over the District Court reminded counsel that a lawyer's responsibilities to the court are not diluted even by an ocean of claims.
In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1087 (11th Cir. 2014). The Eleventh Circuit also observed:
[T]he lawyers in these cases have established a pattern of acting on behalf of "clients" they have dubious authority to represent. As will become evident from the history of this mass action, plaintiffs' counsel have mostly managed their inventory of cases as they see fit, with scant contact with or input from the individuals they purport to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Markus v. Rozhkov
...judicial system. Gregory P. Joseph, Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse , § 28 (2019); see id. (citing In re Engle Cases , 283 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (M.D. Fla. 2017) ) ($9,164,404.12 payable to the court to reimburse cost of processing 1,250 meritless cases, at $6,983.42 per case as c......
-
In re Gonzalez, Case No. 8:12-bk-19213-RCT
...not rise to the level of a bad faith abuse of process warranting sanctions. Perhaps a comparison to the lawyers recently sanctioned in In re Engle Cases134 is appropriate to put things in perspective. There, the lawyers filed thousands of tobacco cases that were removed to federal court. A ......
-
Shire LLC v. Abhai, LLC
...requiring [counsel] to reimburse the taxpayer for the waste of judicial resources. In re Engle Cases, No. 3:09-cv-10000-J-WGY-JBT, 283 F.Supp.3d 1174, 1251–53, 2017 WL 4675652, at *63-64 (M.D. Fla. 2017).A. Attorneys' Fees and CostsAccordingly, Shire, within thirty days of the date of this ......
-
Hill v. Davis
...of this matter. Further, seeing as this litigation is over, repetition in the same case is not a factor now. In re Engle Cases, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2017). Accordingly, this factor weighs in Plaintiff's favor and against a full award of attorneys' fees and costs.14 ix. What......
-
The Real and Imagined Beneficiaries of Legal Ethics
...the inherent power to sanction a lawyer appearing before the court who violates the rules of practice. See, e.g. , In re Engle Cases, 283 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1242 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (observing that “[a] court has the inherent authority to sanction lawyers when they violate a court’s local rules......