Deandra Miller v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., 20-13390

Miller filed a putative class action under the FDCPA; the pretrial order required mediation by June 4, 2020.
Parties scheduled mediation for June 16; Miller failed to appear while her attorneys (Zemel and Giles) attended and the mediator reported Miller’s absence.
Midland moved for sanctions against Miller only; the district court issued an order to show cause directed to Miller and asked counsel to state whether they had regained contact with their client.
Miller’s counsel responded that they had regained contact and explained Miller’s work-related inability to attend; counsel also described attempts to reach Miller after June 16.
The district court nonetheless imposed sanctions on Miller and her attorneys under its inherent power; counsel’s motion for reconsideration was denied and the attorneys appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, concluding the district court failed to give counsel fair notice it was considering sanctions against them and did not make the required explicit bad-faith finding.

Issue	Zemel & Giles' Argument	Midland/District Court Argument	Held
Whether counsel received fair notice that the court was considering sanctions against them under its inherent power	Court did not give counsel meaningful notice or opportunity to respond because the show-cause order targeted Miller, not counsel	Court treated counsel’s communication failures and the case history as justifying sanctions against counsel	Vacated and remanded: record shows counsel lacked fair notice; due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard
Whether an explicit finding of bad faith was required before imposing sanctions under the court’s inherent power	No explicit bad-faith finding was made; counsel’s efforts to contact Miller show lack of bad faith	Court viewed counsel as failing to investigate promptly and thereby justifying sanctions	Vacated and remanded: imposing inherent-power sanctions requires an explicit bad-faith finding; district court did not make one
Whether the sanctions order was supported by sufficient evidence and whether reconsideration was properly addressed	District court relied on assumptions and overlooked evidence submitted on reconsideration detailing counsel’s communications with Miller	District court found no new evidence warranting relief	Court did not reach the merits of reconsideration claim because it resolved the appeal on notice and bad-faith grounds; remand necessary for proper proceedings

Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions review)
Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.) (discussing courts’ inherent power to sanction)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on inherent power and need for restraint)
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (Sup. Ct.) (trial court must find bad faith before imposing inherent-power sanctions)
In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567 (11th Cir.) (due-process notice and meaningful opportunity to respond required for sanctions)
United States v. Shaygan, 652 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir.) (counsel entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard before sanctions)
Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644 (9th Cir.) (explicit bad-faith finding required for inherent-power sanctions)
Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir.) (bad faith may be found where a party delays or disrupts litigation)