Baca v. Berry
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830
10th Cir.2015Background
- Four Albuquerque voters sued Mayor Berry challenging the city’s 2012 redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and one‑person‑one‑vote principles; the case was removed to federal court in January 2013.
- After a March 2013 city charter amendment changed the runoff rule, the plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice in July 2013 to avoid interfering with elections; the Mayor opposed and moved to dismiss with prejudice.
- The district court stayed the case pending elections, then in January 2014 denied the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and dismissed the case with prejudice, finding the plaintiffs’ election‑based reasons unpersuasive.
- The Mayor moved for attorneys’ fees and costs; after a hearing the district court awarded fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, identifying June 25, 2013 (date plaintiffs received the Mayor’s expert report) as the date the case became meritless and sanctionsable, and awarded $48,217.95.
- Plaintiffs (the sanctioned attorneys) appealed only the § 1927 award; the Tenth Circuit vacated the fee award and remanded, holding the district court erred in using June 25 as the automatic trigger because attorneys must have reasonable time to assess adverse expert materials before inaction becomes sanctionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court legally erred in staying the case instead of granting dismissal without prejudice | Stay violated Ohlander; no finding of legal prejudice to Mayor | Stay was within court’s docket control and based on uncertainty about election effects | Court held stay was within discretion and not legal error affecting sanctions decision |
| Whether plaintiffs’ experts satisfied Gingles (Section 2) requirements | Plaintiffs say experts showed racially polarized voting and need for majority‑minority districts | Mayor and his expert showed minority‑preferred candidates actually won exemplar elections, undermining Gingles prongs | Court held plaintiffs’ experts failed to establish the crucial Gingles premise that whites voted as a bloc to defeat minority‑preferred candidates; no legal error in district court’s conclusion |
| Whether plaintiffs’ one‑person‑one‑vote claim was legally meritorious (population deviation) | Plaintiffs argued deviations (≈5%) potentially actionable (relying on Larios) | Mayor argued deviations under 10% are presumptively constitutional absent rebuttal evidence | Court found plaintiffs waived persuasive authority and failed to show the deviation rebutted the presumption of validity; no reversible legal error |
| Whether § 1927 sanctions were appropriate and, if so, when they should begin | Plaintiffs argued the record did not support sanctions and June 25 trigger was premature because they needed time to assess the adverse expert report | Mayor argued Sanderoff’s report made the case meritless on June 25 and attorneys unreasonably continued | Court held sanctions could be appropriate but June 25 was too rigid as a trigger; vacated award and remanded for the district court to identify an appropriate triggering act or sufficient delay after disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- AeroTech, Inc. v. Estes, 110 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir. 1997) (§ 1927 is an “extreme standard” and must be strictly construed)
- Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504 (10th Cir. 1987) (§ 1927 should not dampen legitimate advocacy; objective standard explained)
- Hamilton v. Boise Cascade Express, 519 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2008) (§ 1927 sanctionability requires objective intentional or reckless conduct; review standards)
- Steinert v. Winn Group, Inc., 440 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2006) (cannot impose § 1927 sanctions for initiation of proceedings; need causal link to multiplied proceedings)
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1986) (three‑part framework for Section 2 vote‑dilution claims)
- Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1993) (population deviations under 10% are minor and presumed constitutional)
- Ala. Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2015) (reiterating that small deviations are generally permissible)