Daneshpajouh v. Sage Dental Group of Florida, PLLC, 0:19-cv-62700

Background:

Plaintiff, a dentist, was terminated on November 9, 2017 and sued Sage Dental and related defendants for pregnancy discrimination (Title VII, FCRA), retaliation (Title VII, FCRA), FMLA interference and retaliation, and retaliation under the Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA).
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on all appealed claims (plaintiff did not appeal the FMLA interference claim).
Defendants moved for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs on four theories: sanctions under the court’s inherent powers, sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (both limited to trial fees), contractual fee-shifting under the parties’ Employment Agreement, and fee-shifting under Fla. Stat. § 448.104 (FWA) — seeking both trial and appellate fees under the contract and FWA provisions.
Defendants relied primarily on pre‑litigation text messages in which plaintiff speculated the termination was about money and said she would “blame it on the pregnancy,” and on discovery showing defendants decided to fire plaintiff before she engaged in alleged protected activity.
The magistrate judge found the case weak but not frivolous, declined to find counsel or plaintiff acted in subjective or objective bad faith, cited defendants’ discovery misconduct that prolonged proceedings, and recommended denying the fee motion in full.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sanctions are warranted under the court's inherent powers	Daneshpajouh pursued claims in good faith based on temporal proximity and some circumstantial evidence; texts are speculative	Texts and discovery showed plaintiff knew claims were meritless; counsel failed to investigate => bad faith/sanctions	Denied — no subjective bad faith shown; text messages insufficient; case not frivolous; discovery woes partly caused by defendants’ misconduct
Whether sanctions are warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1927	Counsel conducted reasonable pre-suit investigation; case had circumstantial foundation and EEOC finding	Counsel multiplied proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously by pursuing frivolous claims after discovery	Denied — no objective bad faith; standards high; proceedings were not multiplied by plaintiff/counsel in a sanctionable way
Whether defendants may recover fees under the Employment Agreement (Section 15 prevailing-party clause)	Contract does not clearly encompass independent civil-rights claims; no nexus to agreement	Clause applies to “any legal dispute between the parties,” so prevailing party is entitled to fees	Denied — clause not sufficiently clear to cover non-contractual civil-rights litigation; no nexus requiring contract construction; statutory limits on awarding defendant fees for civil-rights claims noted
Whether defendants may recover fees under the Employment Agreement indemnity clause (Section 13)	Indemnity triggered by plaintiff’s alleged breach (slander/false claims) as shown by texts	Plaintiff breached anti-slander covenant so must indemnify defendants for fees	Denied — indemnity language does not clearly and unambiguously shift fees for this kind of litigation; enforcing it here would improperly bar access to courts and is implausible on the contract language presented
Whether defendants may recover fees under Fla. Stat. § 448.104 (FWA)	Plaintiff pursued meritless FWA claim and acted in bad faith	Prevailing defendants entitled to reasonable fees at court’s discretion	Denied (exercise of discretion) — factors (litigation history, wealth disparity, deterrent effect, merits, good/bad faith) overall neutral or slightly favor plaintiff; awarding fees could deter meritorious claimants

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (district courts possess inherent powers to sanction but must exercise them with restraint)
Hyde v. Irish, 962 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing subjective bad faith for inherent-power sanctions and objective bad faith for § 1927)
Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2010) (§ 1927 sanctions require conduct tantamount to bad faith and unreasonable multiplication of proceedings)
Norelus v. Denny's, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2010) (three-element framework for § 1927: unreasonable/vexatious conduct that multiplies proceedings and cost causation)
CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, 578 U.S. 419 (2016) (limitations on awarding fees to prevailing defendants in civil‑rights litigation)
Int'l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Americaribe‑Moriarty JV, 906 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2018) (contractual fee provisions must clearly and specifically identify the matters for which fees are recoverable)