midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
634 F. App'x 676
11th Cir.
2015
Read the full case

Background

  • Forsberg sued her boss, James Pefanis, for inappropriate touching and lewd comments; a coworker (David Popke) was central to the credibility dispute.
  • Pefanis submitted a statement purportedly from Popke denying he saw the conduct; the district court later considered two declarations from Popke denying authorship and stating he did see Pefanis grope Forsberg.
  • The district court struck Pefanis’s answer as a sanction for submitting the false statement and Forsberg proceeded to a jury trial on the complaint.
  • The jury found for Forsberg on a § 1985 claim and awarded punitive damages but awarded no compensatory damages on that claim.
  • A grand jury later indicted Pefanis for the false statement; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice, admitting knowledge that the statement was false and that he testified falsely about Popke.
  • Pefanis moved for relief from the judgment alleging fraud on the court by Forsberg and her attorneys; the district court denied the motion.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Forsberg) Defendant's Argument (Pefanis) Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by considering Popke’s later declarations instead of live testimony Court may consider affidavits/declarations under Rule 43(c); Popke’s declarations were properly before the court Live testimony was required on an outcome-determinative, contested, factual issue; proceeding on declarations violated due process and confrontation-type rights No abuse of discretion; Rule 43(c) permits affidavits and Pefanis forfeited complaints about lack of live testimony and declined chances to depose Popke
Whether striking Pefanis’s answer was an abuse of discretion as a sanction for submitting the false Popke statement Striking was warranted to address fabricated evidence and prejudice to Forsberg Sanction excessive because statement was unsworn, inadmissible, not used at trial, and monetary sanctions would suffice No abuse of discretion; inherent-power sanctions appropriate for fabricated evidence and lesser sanctions were insufficient
Whether punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 require an underlying award of compensatory damages Punitive damages permitted when defendant acted with evil motive or reckless indifference to rights Punitive damages cannot be awarded absent compensatory damages Punitive damages are permissible independent of compensatory damages under § 1985
Whether the district court erred in denying Pefanis’s motion for relief from judgment alleging fraud on the court Denial was improper because Forsberg and counsel engaged in fraud, perjury, and false affidavits No clear-and-convincing evidence of fraud on the court; allegations are conclusory or ordinary perjury/non-disclosure No abuse of discretion; fraud-on-the-court burden not met and allegations were conclusory or not the type of fraud required

Key Cases Cited

  • Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012) (failure to develop argument forfeits review)
  • Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court’s inherent-power sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
  • Locklin v. Switzer Bros., 348 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1965) (affidavit-based contempt reversed where cross-examination was necessary)
  • Combs v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 927 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1991) (false or altered evidence can justify dismissal as a sanction)
  • Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc., 69 F.3d 1344 (7th Cir. 1995) (statute’s language does not condition punitive damages on compensatory award)
  • Davis v. Locke, 936 F.2d 1208 (11th Cir. 1991) (punitive damages available in civil rights cases absent compensatory damages when defendant acted with evil motive)
  • Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1987) (fraud-on-the-court requires clear and convincing proof)
  • Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978) (failure to disclose material facts does not necessarily constitute fraud on the court)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Evangelina Forsberg v. James Pefanis
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date Published: Dec 11, 2015
Citations: 634 F. App'x 676; 10-10100, 14-15036
Docket Number: 10-10100, 14-15036
Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.
Log In