Gallop v. Cheney
660 F.3d 580
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Second Circuit affirmed district court dismissal of Gallop's complaint as frivolous and issued show-cause sanctions against Gallop and her counsel.
- Gallop alleged 9/11 conspiracy theories against Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers, and others; district court found claims speculative and lacking plausible theory.
- Gallop and counsel failed to justify the appeal; the court criticized the response as disorganized and based on rumors rather than legal theory.
- Gallop moved for panel disqualification; Veale submitted an affidavit advocating recusal of the panel and like-minded judges.
- Gallop II denied disqualification; the court sanctioned Veale and the attorneys under §1927 and Rule 38, including monetary penalties and double costs.
- The court granted Cunningham pro hac vice admission and ordered further sanctions and notice requirements for the sanctioned attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions against Gallop were warranted | Gallop argued the appeal raised colorable questions. | Defendants argued appeal was frivolous and speculative. | Sanctions against Gallop not imposed; admonished for future frivolous filings |
| Whether Gallop's attorneys should be sanctioned | Gallop's attorneys pursued a frivolous, vexatious appeal. | Attorneys multiplied proceedings unreasonably and acted in bad faith. | Yes; double costs and $15,000 damages jointly and severally; additional sanctions and notice obligations |
| Whether Veale's motion to disqualify the panel was sanctionable | Veale believed disqualification was merited by bias and emotions linked to 9/11. | No legal support for mandatory recusal; tone and assertions improper. | Veale sanctioned for bad faith; one-year notice requirement to courts within the circuit |
| Whether Cunningham should be separately sanctioned | Cunningham was principal author and responsible for the challenged filings. | N/A or insufficient justification for separate sanction arguments beyond the record. | Cunningham ordered to show cause why separate sanctions should not apply |
| Whether Cunningham's admission pro hac vice was appropriate | N/A | N/A | Admission pro hac vice granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2011) (affirmed dismissal and ordered show-cause sanctions for frivolous appeal)
- Gallop v. Cheney, 645 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam; denied disqualification; sanctions on Veale)
- In re Porto, 645 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2011) (sins of the lawyer not automatically visit client; admonishes court labeling)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent authority to sanction conduct in litigation)