Ransmeier v. UAL Corporation
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9732
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- On June 26, 2012, a panel issued a summary order affirming denial of Mariani's renewed motion to intervene and ordering sanctions for conduct before the Court.
- The panel reviewed Mariani and her counsel Leichty’s submissions, including a Motion to Supplement the Record, and imposed sanctions in the form of double costs jointly and severally on Mariani and Leichty.
- Mariani is the widow of Louis Mariani; the Peters suit is the related case in which a New Hampshire probate agreement shifted dismissal and control to pursue Peters’ action.
- From 2005 onward, Mariani sought to intervene in the Peters suit, despite the probate agreement showing her intent to abandon all claims, including loss of consortium.
- The court had previously found Mariani lacked legal status in federal action and that her arguments should have been addressed in probate court; the current motion amplified ad hominem and anti-court rhetoric.
- The Motion to Supplement the Record contained anti-Semitic insinuations about Judge Hellerstein and his family, leading to the sanction decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court sanction for bad-faith conduct? | Leichty acted in good faith belief in merit of appeal. | Court may sanction for bad faith and excessive conduct. | Yes; inherent power to sanction for bad faith conduct applies. |
| Was Leichty’s Motion to Supplement the Record frivolous and sanctionable? | Motion had some legal basis and attempted to develop evidence. | Motion was frivolous, procedurally deficient, and used to attack the district court with insulting rhetoric. | Yes; motion frivolous and sanctionable. |
| Should Mariani be sanctioned for her role in the litigation and the Motion? | Mariani collaborated with counsel and signed filings; she bears responsibility. | Client may not be punished for attorney’s decisions unless she directed conduct. | Yes; Mariani jointly and severally liable for double costs. |
| Is double costs to be awarded to deter future misconduct appropriate here? | Sanctions are warranted to deter egregious behavior. | Other sanctions or no sanctions may be insufficient to deter repeat behavior. | Yes; double costs awarded; no further fines at this time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent power to sanction bad-faith conduct; control of court proceedings)
- Gallop v. Cheney (Gallop I), 642 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2011) (sanctions for frivolous appeals; bad-faith and disrespectful conduct)
- Gallop v. Cheney (Gallop II), 645 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2011) (sanctions context for attorney conduct in litigation)
- Gallop v. Cheney (Gallop III), 660 F.3d 580 (2d Cir. 2011) (sanctions for egregious conduct and air of personal grievance)
- Ransmeier v. Mariani, 486 F. App’x 890 (2d Cir. 2012) (prior sanction context and summary order on related issues)
- N.S. Windows, LLC v. Minoru Yamasaki Assocs., Inc., 351 F. App’x 461 (2d Cir. 2009) (preclusive effect of prior probate agreement on federal status)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (impartiality standards referenced in recusal context)
- Chambers, 501 U.S. 32, 501 U.S. 32 (S. Ct. 1991) (inherent power cited in sanctions analysis)