Earle Yaffa v., SunSouth Bank
17-10368
| 11th Cir. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (real‑estate investors) sued SunSouth and others, alleging fraud and RICO violations; after trial the district court rescinded guaranties/assignments for fraud and enjoined enforcement on RICO claims. SunSouth appealed but later dismissed the appeal after settling RICO claims.
- Pretrial scheduling orders required meet‑and‑confer and joint pretrial submissions; defense counsel Deanna Weidner repeatedly missed deadlines, failed to file witness/exhibit lists, and submitted insufficient/late materials.
- The district court issued a show‑cause order, heard argument, warned counsel on the record that sanctions would follow further noncompliance, and initially struck SunSouth’s witness/exhibit submissions.
- During trial the court reconsidered declining to completely bar SunSouth from presenting a defense, instead ordering SunSouth to pay plaintiffs’ related fees and imposing a separate $5,000 fine on Weidner personally for a ‘‘pattern of delay, noncompliance, and total disregard’’ of pretrial orders.
- Weidner appealed, arguing the fine lacked adequate notice, factual basis, and due process; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a monetary sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) against counsel was an abuse of discretion | Weidner: sanction lacked sufficient factual basis and explanation; deprived her of due process | District court: record shows repeated noncompliance and warned counsel; $5,000 fine tailored and minimal | Affirmed — no abuse; Rule 16(f) permits just orders for pretrial noncompliance; facts supported sanction and process was adequate |
| Whether the court could impose the fine under its inherent authority (requiring bad faith) and satisfy due process | Weidner: insufficient finding of bad faith and inadequate opportunity to respond | District court: expressly found willful disregard tantamount to bad faith; gave fair notice and chances to be heard | Affirmed — bad‑faith finding supported by record; due process satisfied (notice and opportunity to respond) |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaniego v. United States, 345 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16 sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion; designed to punish delay/noncompliance)
- Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2006) (due process requires rationale and connection between sanctioned conduct and sanction amount)
- Giovanno v. Fabec, 804 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2015) (Rule 16 sanctions permissible without explicit bad‑faith finding when conduct warrants sanctions)
- Carlucci v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 775 F.2d 1440 (11th Cir. 1985) (vacating discovery sanction where district court failed to explain monetary amount)
- Kornhauser v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 685 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2012) (inherent‑power sanctions require bad‑faith finding and due process)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (courts have inherent authority to sanction abuses of the judicial process)