Hall v. Department of Homeland Security
219 F. Supp. 3d 112
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Steven Hall sued DHS and others; Rosemary Dettling (FELSC) had represented him in administrative proceedings and negotiated a settlement; Hall later filed a pro se federal suit and the Court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction after Hall effectively conceded no basis to proceed.
- Glenn Stephens, a lawyer who had briefly worked for Dettling’s firm, began a campaign of online attacks and outreach to Dettling’s clients after their short employment relationship ended; Dettling filed a D.C. Bar complaint against him.
- After the federal case had been dismissed, Stephens intervened on Hall’s behalf, filed an appearance, and submitted numerous motions (amendments, default, disqualification, supplements) despite multiple Court orders requiring vacatur of the dismissal before further filings.
- Stephens repeatedly violated the Court’s instructions: filing motions after dismissal, filing stricken or denied pleadings, relitigating previously rejected arguments, and inserting personal attacks on Dettling into the record.
- Dettling moved for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s inherent authority, seeking costs, referral to disciplinary authorities, contempt, and an injunction against further filings; the Court found Stephens acted in bad faith to advance a personal vendetta rather than to represent Hall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 are warranted for Stephens’s conduct | Dettling: Stephens unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings, acted in bad faith and with improper motive | Stephens: Attacks Dettling's credibility; does not meaningfully dispute conduct | Court: §1927 sanctions appropriate; clear and convincing evidence of bad faith and improper motive (personal vendetta) |
| Whether the Court may impose sanctions under its inherent authority and refer to disciplinary bodies | Dettling: Court should impose additional sanctions and refer Stephens to the D.C. Bar and Committee on Grievances | Stephens: No substantive defense; focuses on attacking Dettling | Court: Inherent-authority sanctions and referral to D.C. Bar/Grievance Committee appropriate given egregious, repeated misconduct |
| What monetary relief is recoverable from sanctions | Dettling: Seeks fees, costs, expenses (including costs of preparing motion for sanctions and hearings caused by Stephens) | Stephens: Does not contest amounts in substance | Court: Orders Stephens to pay documented costs and expenses that Dettling can establish arising from specified frivolous filings and related conferences |
| Whether post-dismissal motions filed before vacatur were procedurally proper | N/A as plaintiff’s motions required vacatur first | Stephens filed numerous motions (default, amended complaints, supplements) despite Court orders requiring vacatur first | Court: Such motions were improper; repeatedly denied or struck; Court admonished that no further motions be filed until vacatur and treated Stephens’s filings as vexatious |
Key Cases Cited
- LaPrade v. Kidder Peabody & Co., Inc., 146 F.3d 899 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (standard for §1927 sanctions requires recklessness, bad faith, or improper motive)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (court’s inherent authority to sanction for bad-faith conduct)
- Knorr Brake Corp. v. Harbil, Inc., 738 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1984) (malicious intent may be inferred from total lack of factual or legal basis)
- In re TCI Ltd., 769 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1985) (attorney’s filings without reasonable inquiry can justify sanctions under §1927)
- Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1986) (§1927 sanctions proper when filings are completely without merit and undertaken for improper purpose)
- Manion v. American Airlines, Inc., 395 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (limits on recoverable sanctions but allows costs and expenses tied to sanctionable conduct)
- First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002) (sanctions may include fees associated with filing a successful motion for sanctions)
- Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Cos., 62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (bad-faith filings and disrespect for court process may warrant sanctions)