643 F.Supp.3d 989
D. Ariz.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Kari Lake and Mark Finchem sued Arizona election officials seeking an injunction requiring hand-marked paper ballots and a full hand-count for the 2022 midterms, alleging electronic voting systems were insecure and unanuditable.
- Defendants (Maricopa County Board members and Secretary of State) moved to dismiss; the court granted dismissal in full on August 26, 2022 and denied the preliminary injunction as moot.
- Maricopa County Defendants then moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, arguing the FAC and MPI contained false, misleading, and speculative allegations and that counsel pursued the case recklessly and to multiply proceedings.
- The court found key allegations false or unsupported (e.g., that Arizona does not use paper ballots; that equipment lacked independent testing or audits) and that plaintiffs relied on misleading analogies to other jurisdictions and the Cyber Ninjas audit.
- The court concluded plaintiffs’ counsel failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry and acted at least recklessly in pressing time-sensitive, extraordinary relief near the election; it granted sanctions against counsel (not the plaintiffs) and directed defendants to file a fee submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC/MPI falsely alleged Arizona does not use hand-marked paper ballots (Rule 11(b)(3)) | Plaintiffs say FAC at most criticizes machine tabulation and does not deny use of paper ballots; relief targets computerized counting | Defendants say FAC and MPI repeatedly imply Arizona lacks an auditable paper-ballot system and therefore advance false central allegations | Court: FAC/MPI implied Arizona lacked paper ballots; those representations were false and sanctionable under Rule 11(b)(3) |
| Whether allegations about testing, audits, and internet connectivity were unsupported or misleading (Rule 11(b)(2)/(b)(3)) | Plaintiffs contend they challenged sufficiency of testing/audits and raised reasonable concerns supported by experts; absence of prior hacks does not preclude risk | Defendants show independent EAC-accredited testing, public certification, routine audits, and evidence that systems are air-gapped; plaintiffs omitted contrary material | Court: allegations that testing/audits did not occur were false; many claims were speculative and misleading (internet-connectivity claims were treated more leniently but plaintiffs’ omissions were criticized) |
| Whether plaintiffs/counsel failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry (Rule 11 two-prong) | Plaintiffs assert meritorious claims and cite evidence and expert analyses; the passage of time does not bar challenge | Defendants argue public records and widely available facts contradicted plaintiffs’ claims; counsel had prior related litigation experience | Court: objective inquiry would have revealed the flaws; counsel failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry and violated Rule 11 |
| Whether § 1927 sanctions are warranted for counsel’s multiplication of proceedings (bad faith or recklessness) | Plaintiffs deny subjective bad faith and say proceedings were not unreasonably multiplied | Defendants say counsel pursued an extraordinary PI close to the election despite warnings and authority (Purcell), wasting time and resources | Court: counsel acted recklessly in pursuing time-sensitive, baseless injunctive relief; §1927 sanctions appropriate; counsel jointly and severally liable for defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (Rule 11’s central purpose is deterrence of baseless filings balanced against vigorous advocacy)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (future injury must be certainly impending to confer Article III standing)
- Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990) (Rule 11 analysis can sanction partly unsupported pleadings; pleading-as-a-whole rule rejected)
- Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2005) (two-prong Rule 11 inquiry: baselessness and reasonableness of pre-filing inquiry)
- United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 11 sanctioning cautions and competing considerations)
- Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mtn. Club, LLC, 796 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2015) (§1927 requires subjective bad faith; recklessness can suffice)
- Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000) (§1927 targets attorneys who wrongfully proliferate litigation)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court’s inherent authority to sanction abuses of the judicial process)