In re Gordon, 484 B.R. 825

Petitioner Malloy, as Chapter 7 trustee, sought sanctions against Commerce Bank and its counsel for alleged bad-faith conduct opposing a compromise (CA) and for related discovery actions.
Commerce Bank had filed a proof of claim and opposed the CA, alleging fatal procedural flaws in Malloy’s plan and its litigation strategy.
Trustee alleged that letters from Commerce counsel (Vance letter) and associated communications (Williams letter) improperly pressured authorities and targeted Malloy’s integrity.
The court conducted hearings, addressed discovery disputes, and held that many problems stemmed from personal accusations and heated pleadings rather than meritorious legal grounds.
Rule 9011 and §105(a) were central to the court’s analysis of sanctions, with the court noting mandatory service and waiting periods under Rule 9011.
The court ultimately denied sanctions against Commerce and its counsel, and reserved judgment on related fee issues, noting better remedies exist outside the sanctions motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 9011 sanctions are appropriate	Malloy argues Commerce’s pleadings were filed in bad faith to harass and harm the estate.	Commerce contends Rule 9011 is not violated and the conduct was not sanctionable.	Sanctions denied under Rule 9011
Whether the court's inherent power under §105(a) supports sanctions	Malloy relies on Chambers to sanction misconduct beyond Rule 9011.	Courtesy Inns limits §105(a) relief where Rules address the conduct.	No sanctions under §105(a); inherent power not invoked
Whether sanctions are warranted for the Vance and Williams letters	Malloy treats the letters as improper attempts to influence the court.	Letters were outside pleadings; reporting concerns to authorities is appropriate.	No sanctions for the letters; not pleading-based conduct

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (inherent power to sanction; rules preferred if available)
In re Courtesy Inns, Ltd., 40 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1994) (limits §105(a) power; courts rely on Rules when available)
Cadle Co. v. Pratt (In re Pratt), 524 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 2008) (Rule 9011 application in sanctions context)
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980) (prohibits misuse of judicial process; supports standards for sanctions)
Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts and related proceedings)