Muathe v. Fleming, 899 F.3d 1140

Background

A group of Kansas citizens (the Summary Judgment Group) sued two state judges and media defendants alleging the judges pressured a radio station to cancel an ad and conspired to suppress a petition effort; King was the sole plaintiff with standing for the surviving claims.
Plaintiffs (through attorney Prince Ogunmeno) filed an amended complaint that attached “Exhibit 2,” a photograph of an email purportedly from Judge Fleming; the image had superimposed text that materially altered the underlying email.
The district court initially relied on the quoted contents of that exhibit when granting limited leave to amend; defendants later produced the actual email and an affidavit showing Exhibit 2 was altered and misleading.
Defendants served a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter; Plaintiffs refused to withdraw the complaint and sought forensic testing instead of retracting the doctored exhibit.
The district court found Ogunmeno failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry, concluded Rule 11 was violated, struck the complaint and dismissed all remaining federal and state claims with prejudice, and awarded attorneys’ fees against King, Muathe, and Ogunmeno.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional discovery, imposing Rule 11 sanctions (including dismissal with prejudice), or awarding fees to defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying forensic discovery of the email	King: forensic testing needed to authenticate disputed email	Defendants: manipulation of Exhibit 2 and Plaintiffs’ conduct made testing irrelevant; safe-harbor and affidavit suffice	Denial affirmed — discovery would not excuse presenting a manipulated document and inquiry was unreasonable
Whether Rule 11 violation occurred	King/Ogunmeno: reasonable belief and sources supported email quote; conspiracy claims require inference pre-discovery	Defendants: Exhibit 2 was materially altered; counsel made no meaningful inquiry and refused to withdraw after notice	Violation affirmed — counsel presented and promoted a doctored document and failed to respond reasonably to safe-harbor notice
Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate sanction under Rule 11	King: dismissal is extreme; lesser sanctions would suffice; state claims should be preserved	Defendants: falsified central evidence prejudiced them, interfered with the court, and warranted strong deterrence	Dismissal affirmed — five-factor test supports severe sanction given prejudice, interference, culpability, notice via Rule 11 safe-harbor, and inefficacy of lesser sanctions
Whether attorney-fee awards were proper and reasonable	King/Others: fees excessive; salaried AG attorney’s hourly rate unreasonable; media defendants did not seek sanctions	Defendants: fees reasonably calculated at market rates; fees recoverable for costs directly resulting from Rule 11 violation	Fees affirmed — district court reasonably set rates/deterrent amount, and award to media defendants not preserved for review

Key Cases Cited

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (broad discretion for district courts in Rule 11 determinations)
Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916 (10th Cir. 1992) (dismissal with prejudice is an extreme sanction; factors to consider)
Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 402 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissal-as-sanction factors and interference with judicial process)
Xyngular v. Schenkel, 890 F.3d 868 (10th Cir. 2018) (applying five-factor test for dismissal as sanction)
White v. Gen. Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 675 (10th Cir. 1990) (factors for awarding attorney’s fees under Rule 11)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (procedural guidance for dismissal with prejudice)
Lippoldt v. Cole, 468 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (market-rate fee awards for salaried attorneys)
Praseuth v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 406 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2005) (lodestar method for reasonable fees)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (pendent jurisdiction considerations when federal claims dismissed)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (flexibility in exercising pendent jurisdiction)