Schaffer v. Iron Cloud, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3876,87-3876 |
| Citation | 865 F.2d 690 |
| Parties | , 13 Fed.R.Serv.3d 47 John T. SCHAFFER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRON CLOUD, INC., and Boston Old Colony Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James A. Wysocki, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Lawrence E. Abbott, T. Patrick Baynham, New Orleans, La., for Iron cloud, inc.
James A. Cobb, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before WISDOM, GARWOOD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges:
In this seaman's action, plaintiff appeals a district court order enforcing the immediate payment of sanctions. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Based on our conclusion that this sanction order is not appealable before entry of final judgment, we grant the motion to dismiss.
When plaintiff failed to comply with a magistrate's order compelling plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination, the defendants moved to enforce the order and for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. After a hearing, the magistrate found that plaintiff had not complied with the order and awarded sanctions, later fixed at $905.80, representing attorney's fees and expenses incurred by defendants. Plaintiff moved for review of the sanctions order and also for a stay of the enforcement order. The district court stayed the sanctions order "until thirty (30) days after the pending appeal becomes final." Thereafter, the district court denied plaintiff's motion to review the sanctions order, stating that the motion for review had previously been ruled upon. The defendants then moved to enforce payment of the sanctions, which the district court granted.
Although appellant acknowledges in his brief that the district court's order enforcing sanctions is not final, he nevertheless seeks review because "[t]he district court entered an order that [holds], in effect, that the sanctions order [is] a 'final' order." Appellant reasons that an order which requires immediate payment of sanctions is inconsistent with Fifth Circuit authority holding that sanctions orders are not appealable until after entry of final judgment. SeeClick v. Abilene National Bank, 822 F.2d 544, 545 (5th Cir.1987). Thus, appellant argues that, under Click, the district court had no authority to require payment of the sanctions before it entered the final judgment.
We reject appellant's argument. In Thomas v. Capital Security Services, Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 882-83 and n. 23 (5th Cir.1988) (en banc), this court held that the district courts have broad authority to impose monetary sanctions prior to the entry of final judgment. The only relevant limitation to the district court's authority in this respect occurs when the imposition of sanctions significantly impedes a litigant's access to the courts. Id. If a litigant contends that payment of the award would render him financially unable to proceed with his case, the district court must hold a prompt hearing and make express written findings on this issue. Id. Appellant in the present case makes no such contention.
Because appellant incorrectly concludes that a sanctions order is not enforceable until after entry of final judgment, it is no surprise that he is confused by the district court's seemingly inconsistent rulings staying the magistrate's order requiring payment until it was "final" and then ordering enforcement of the order. The magistrate's order became "final" when the district court denied appellant's motion for review. Thirty days after the district court denied plaintiff's motion for review, the stay order expired and defendants moved to enforce payment of the sanctions. The district court's action in granting this motion was not inconsistent with its previous ruling.
Through somewhat circuitous reasoning, appellant now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Kouri-Perez
...appeals from "immediate payment" orders which threaten a special risk of harm to the appellant. See, e.g., Schaffer v. Iron Cloud, Inc., 865 F.2d 690, 691-92 (5th Cir. 1989) (dismissing interlocutory appeal of sanction order, even though court directed immediate payment); Eastern Maico, 658......
-
Chaves v. M/V Medina Star
...routinely are appealed when merged into the district court's final judgment. Id. This decision was reaffirmed in Schaffer v. Iron Cloud, Inc., 865 F.2d 690 (5th Cir.1989). In Schaffer, as in the instant case, the sanction order against the attorney was immediately payable. Even so, in the a......
-
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. U.S.
...held that discovery sanction orders are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Schaffer v. Iron Cloud, Inc., 865 F.2d 690, 691 (5th Cir.1989); D & H Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443, 1444-46 (10th Cir.1984) (en banc ); Kordich v. Marine ......
-
Braden v. Downey
...a prompt hearing, as to why the award does not have such a preclusive effect. Id. at 882-883 n. 23. Accord Schaffer v. Iron Cloud, Inc., 865 F.2d 690, 691 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam). This procedure allows the trial court to levy some monetary sanctions during pretrial proceedings but requi......