713 F. App'x 380
5th Cir.2018Background
- Daniel Askins sued Jeffrey Hagopian in S.D. Tex. (May 13, 2016) for defamation and tortious interference; Hagopian’s counsel emailed Askins’ counsel in July 2016 calling the suit “frivolous and vexatious.”
- Trial began July 10, 2017; after Askins rested, Hagopian moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); the district court granted the motion and entered final judgment (July 26, 2017).
- Hagopian filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (Aug. 3, 2017) seeking attorney’s fees; the district court granted $50,000 in sanctions (Aug. 22, 2017).
- On the same day Hagopian filed a bill of costs; Askins objected and the district court overruled objections and awarded costs (record shows bill of costs filed Aug. 22, though Local Rule required filing within 14 days of judgment).
- Askins appealed both the Rule 11 sanction order and the award of costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were properly imposed despite failure to comply with Rule 11 safe-harbor | Askins: Hagopian failed to comply with mandatory 21-day safe-harbor; sanctions improper. | Hagopian: Safe-harbor noncompliance not fatal; appellate record uncertainties and prior e-mail satisfied notice. | Reversed: Court held strict compliance with Rule 11 safe-harbor is mandatory; Hagopian did not comply, so sanctions vacated. |
| Whether costs award should be upheld despite untimely bill of costs | Askins: Bill of costs was untimely under S.D. Tex. Loc. R. 54.2; award was an abuse of discretion. | Hagopian: Timeliness challenge unsupported; record limitations; suggested appellate review should not disturb award. | Vacated: Because Hagopian filed bill of costs after the 14-day Local Rule deadline, the costs award was vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., 332 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 11 sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (district-court abuse of discretion review includes review for legal error)
- Elliott v. Tilton, 64 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 1995) (strict enforcement of Rule 11 safe-harbor; failure to comply precludes sanctions)
- In re Pratt, 524 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2008) (strict compliance with Rule 11’s safe-harbor is mandatory)
- Tompkins v. Cyr, 202 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2000) (service of the Rule 11 motion is required to satisfy safe-harbor)
- Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2006) (cost awards reviewed only for clear abuse of discretion)
- Quarles v. Oxford Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1989) (vacating costs awards when local rule filing deadlines are not met)