Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Velez
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25802
| 1st Cir. | 2010Background
- Lamboy-Ortiz and Figueroa-Montalvo (NPP) sues Mayor Ortiz-Vélez and police officials alleging §1983 political discrimination, due process, and Law 100 claims.
- December 15, 2001 incident at Sabana Grande police station involved alleged crude comments about Governor Calderón; Vargas-Santiago reports, corroboration limited and later recantation emerges.
- Internal investigation leads to suspensions and transfers; criminal charges filed in January 2002; ultimately reduced to five months' suspension without pay; later acquittals in January 2004.
- February–June 2005 trial with numerous evidentiary issues; district court grants Rule 50 (JMOL) in October 2005; plaintiffs settle/withdraw appeal after judgment.
- August 2006 Mayor seeks attorney's fees under §1988 for $207,507 plus post-judgment fees; 2008 district court awards $194,808 with 15% reduction and sanctions attorney Gonzalez under §1927; sanctions later reduced to $5,000; fee award vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees to the prevailing defendant. | Ortiz-Velez contends plaintiffs lacked basis for fee award. | Defendant argues action was groundless and merits fees. | Fee award vacated; district court abused discretion. |
| Whether sanctions against counsel Gonzalez under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 were proper. | Sanctions excessive or unwarranted given conduct. | Counsel's vexatious conduct warranted sanctions. | Sanctions affirmed but reduced to $5,000. |
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were proper and procedurally correct. | Rule 11 sanctions not properly sought or applicable. | Sanctions justified by vexatious conduct. | Rule 11 sanctions not sustained; §1927 basis affirmed. |
| Whether the notice of appeal adequately challenged sanctions on counsel Gonzalez. | Appeal should cover sanctions against Gonzalez. | Notice sufficiently indicated intent to appeal sanctions. | Notice of appeal adequate; jurisdiction satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (Sup. Ct. 1978) (frivolous or groundless claim standard; hindsight risk in fee awards)
- Welch v. Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927 (1st Cir. 2008) (First Amendment political discrimination standard)
- Anthony v. Sundlun, 952 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1991) (circumstantial evidence suffices for political discrimination claims)
- Foster v. Mydas Assocs., Inc., 943 F.2d 139 (1st Cir. 1991) (assessing reasonableness of civil rights claims at outset)
- Tang v. State of R.I., Dep't of Elderly Affairs, 163 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing attorney's fee awards under 1988)
- Cruz v. Savage, 896 F.2d 626 (1st Cir. 1990) (vexatious conduct under §1927 framework)
- City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (constitutional limits on damages and fee shifting in §1983 actions)
- United States v. DeCicco, 370 F.3d 206 (1st Cir. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for fee decisions)