Randall Waldman v. Ronald Stone, 854 F.3d 853

Over a decade earlier Waldman and attorney Bruce Atherton defrauded Stone; Stone litigated repeatedly to obtain relief.
After the first appeal the panel vacated the judgment on Article III grounds; the district court entered a new judgment awarding Stone compensatory and punitive damages exceeding $3 million total.
On second appeal this Court affirmed fraud, reduced compensatory damages to $650,776, vacated joint-and-several liability, and issued a limited remand to apportion liability among parties.
On remand the district court apportioned liability 50% to Waldman and 50% to Atherton, and adjusted punitive damages to maintain a 2:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio.
Waldman filed a third appeal raising four arguments: (1) punitive damages invalid, (2) 2:1 ratio improper, (3) Waldman should bear 0% of fault, and (4) Stone was partially at fault for failing to discover the fraud sooner.
The Court concluded several of Waldman’s third-appeal arguments were beyond the limited remand or repetitive of earlier, already-rejected positions, and thus frivolous; it awarded Appellate Rule 38 sanctions of $4,157.50 joint and several against Waldman and his counsel.

Issue	Stone's Argument	Waldman's Argument	Held
Whether punitive damages may be relitigated on limited remand	Supports district court punitive award	Challenges validity of punitive damages	Out of bounds on limited remand; frivolous to raise here
Whether 2:1 punitive-to-compensatory ratio is improper	Supports district court ratio	Challenges the 2:1 ratio	Out of bounds on limited remand and waived; frivolous
Whether Waldman should be allocated 0% responsibility	Stone: Waldman committed fraud and bears responsibility	Waldman: he bears no responsibility for Stone’s damages	Reiterating prior rejected claims; frivolous
Whether Stone shares fault for failing to uncover fraud sooner	Stone: Waldman impeded discovery; Stone not at fault	Waldman: Stone was partly to blame for delay in discovery	Meritless but not frivolous; not sanctionable alone

CFE Grp., LLC v. Firstmerit Bank, N.A., 809 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 38 sanctions in appellate context)
Miller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 554 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 2009) (Rule 38 grants discretion to assess damages for frivolous appeals)
McDonald v. Flake, 814 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 2016) (definition of frivolous appeal)
Hill v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987) (sanctions where frivolous claims surround a colorable claim)
Macklin v. City of New Orleans, 300 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2002) (same)
In re Perry, 918 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (same)
Top Entertainment v. Ortega, 285 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2002) (awarding sanctions jointly and severally against appellant and counsel)