In re W.A.R. LLP
| Decision Date | 06 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 12-1796 RCL |
| Citation | 535 B.R. 1 |
| Parties | In re: W.A.R. LLP, Bankruptcy Debtor |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Ty Clevenger, Youngkin & Burns, PLLC, Bryan, TX, for Appellant.
Appellant Ty Clevenger seeks review of Bankruptcy Judge S. Martin Teel, Jr.'s imposition of $5,000 in Rule 9011 sanctions against him in Bankruptcy Case No. 11–44. See Am. Brief for Appellant, ECF No. 12; Order and Judgment, Sept. 25, 2012, Bankr.Case No. 11–44, Doc. No. 370. Judge Teel found that Clevenger had repeatedly made frivolous legal arguments to the court on behalf of his client and had done so for an improper purpose.
Clevenger raises three bases for reversing Judge Teel's order and judgment. First, he contends that the sanctions are akin to a finding of criminal contempt and, therefore, that he should have been afforded the procedural protections that attend a criminal contempt proceeding. Second, he argues that the amount of the sanctions imposed was excessive. Finally, he argues that there was insufficient evidence that he had an improper purpose. All of Clevenger's arguments fail.
District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees issued by bankruptcy judges. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The bankruptcy court's legal conclusions are subject to de novo review. In re Hope 7 Monroe Street Ltd. P'ship, 743 F.3d 867, 873 (D.C.Cir.2014). Its findings of fact, however, may only be reversed for clear error. Id.
The procedure used by Judge Teel was valid and he was not required to afford Clevenger with the type of process given those subject to criminal contempt proceedings. The sanctions were ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. That rule provides that a court may order sanctions on its own motion if it enters “an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(1)(B). The record indicates that this is precisely what Judge Teel did and Clevenger does not contest that Judge Teel adhered to this standard. See Order Directing Wade A. Robertson and Ty Clevenger to Show Cause, July 11, 2011, Bankr.Case No. 11–44, Doc. No. 212.
Instead, Clevenger contends that four factors indicate that the sanctions ordered are punitive and, therefore, criminal in nature: (1) the amount of the sanctions, (2) the fact that the sanctions are to be paid to the court, (3) the fact that the sanctions are concerned with past conduct, not future compliance, and (4) the fact that there is no opportunity to purge the sanctions by better behavior. Am. Brief for Appellant at 2. In support of the utility of these factors, Clevenger cites Mackler Productions, Inc. v. Cohen, 146 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.1998), which described the analytical framework that should be used in determining whether sanctions “should be considered punishment for criminal contempt, rather than remedies for civil contempt.” See id. at 129. Clevenger also cites decisions from other courts of appeals holding that Rule 11 sanctions ordered on the court's own motion are only authorized if the conduct is “akin to a contempt of court.” See Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, 1255–56 (11th Cir.2003) ; In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, 323 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir.2003).
Clevenger's arguments along this line are unavailing. Judge Teel was not required to afford Clevenger with the procedures used in criminal contempt proceedings because the sanctions were rendered in accord with the terms of Rule 9011 and because Rule 9011 sanctions proceedings need not have such protections.
Rule 9011 states that sanctions imposed for a violation of the rule are “limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(c)(2). The rule prescribes that a sanction may consist of or include “an order to pay a penalty into court.” Id. Judge Teel stated that the sanctions ordered were limited to the amount required to deter further violations of Rule 9011 by Clevenger and those similarly situated.1 See Mem. Decision Addressing Mots. To Reconsider at 24, Sept. 25, 2012, Bankr.Case No. 11–44, Doc. No. 369; Mem. Decision re Imposition of Sanctions at 56, May 3, 2012, Bankr.Case No. 11–44, Doc. No. 275. Thus, as to the stated purpose of the sanction order, its size, and the method of its payment, Judge Teel's order was within Rule 9011's terms. As already stated above, the procedure adopted by Judge Teel also complied with Rule 9011.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the many courts that have held that there is no basis to equate sanctions under Rule 9011 and criminal contempt. See In re DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 552–53 (9th Cir.2004) ; Eisenberg v. Univ. of N.M., 936 F.2d 1131, 1136–37 (10th Cir.1991) ( Fed. R. Civ.P. 11 );2 In re Tbyrd Enters. LLC, 354 Fed.Appx. 837, 839 (5th Cir.2009) (unpublished op.) (per curiam); In re Yehud–Monosson USA, Inc., 472 B.R. 795, 803 (D.Minn.2012). The Ninth Circuit persuasively discussed the point in In re DeVille, relying upon the advisory committee's notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as supplying “controlling insight” into Rules 11 and 9011. See 361 F.3d at 552. The court cited the advisory committee's various statements of the policies and procedures underlying the sanctions process authorized by Rules 11 and 9011, all of which “foreclos [e] the contention that the drafters of either rule were contemplating a criminal process.” For example, the process to be used is left mostly to the court's discretion. The court may decide the issues based solely on the written submissions or it may allow for oral argument and evidentiary presentation. See id. at 552–53 (). The advisory committee's observations about the purpose of the rule are also revealing. They emphasize that the fundamental object of Rule 9011 sanctions is deterrence of further sanctionable conduct, not punishment of past conduct. See id. at 553. These comments also demonstrate the central role of the court in determining whether sanctions should be imposed and what the amount should be. Id. The ample discretion, procedural flexibility, and central role conferred on the bankruptcy court indicates that the drafters of Rule 9011 did not have criminal proceedings of the type envisioned by Clevenger in mind. Cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 42(a) ().
Because the sanctions rendered against Clevenger were ordered pursuant to Rule 9011 and in accord with that rule's purposes and procedures, Clevenger has no basis to challenge Judge Teel's order and judgment on the grounds of a refusal to apply the procedures applicable to criminal contempt.
Clevenger's citation of Mackler Productions and its factors for determining the civil or criminal nature of contempt is inapposite. As the Ninth Circuit noted in In re De Ville, the sanctions at issue in Mackler Productions were explicitly labeled by the district court as “punitive” and were rendered pursuant to the court's inherent power. See In re DeVille, 361 F.3d at 553 n. 9. Thus, the sanctions in that case did not have the purpose of deterring future conduct but, instead, were intended to punish past conduct. Furthermore, the sanctions in that case were not rendered pursuant to Rules 11 or 9011, which, as set forth above, were enacted to allow courts to impose sanctions without the strictures of criminal due process.
Clevenger's argument is also not supported by the cited cases holding that sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions may only be ordered on the basis of conduct that is akin to contempt of court. The D.C. Circuit has expressly declined to decide whether these cases correctly state the standard for imposing Rule 11 sanctions sua sponte. See Lucas v. Duncan, 574 F.3d 772, 776 (D.C.Cir.2009). More importantly, the cases themselves do not lend support for requiring criminal contempt procedures when a court orders Rule 11 or 9011 sanctions on its own motion. Instead, they merely discuss the stringency of the standard of review in this situation and the mens rea that the sanctioned party must have had for the sanctions to be valid. See In re Pennie & Edmonds, 323 F.3d at 90.
Clevenger also challenges the size of the sanctions imposed on him. He does so by cherry picking sanctions awards from other cases that were smaller than the $5,000 judgment at issue in this case and arguing that the conduct in those cases was worse than his conduct here. This argument fails as well.
Sanctions for violation of Rule 9011(b) are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Burns v. George Basilikas Trust, 599 F.3d 673, 677 (D.C.Cir.2010). Courts should afford “[d]eference to the determination of courts on the front lines of litigation” because they are “best situated to determine when a sanction is warranted to serve Rule 11's goal of specific and general deterrence.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 404, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). This rationale extends to the size of the sanctions awarded in service of the rule. The law of this circuit holds that courts have “ ‘virtually untrammeled’ discretion in fixing the amount of sanctions to be imposed” under Rule 11 and, therefore, Rule 9011. See Carswell v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 248 F.R.D. 325, 330 (D.D.C.2008) (quoting Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Banov, 899 F.2d 40, 46 (D.C.Cir.1990) ) (discussing the standards applied under Rule 11 ). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial