RES-GA Cobblestone, LLC v. Blake Construction & Development, LLC
718 F.3d 1308
11th Cir.2013Background
- Cobblestone (plaintiffs) obtained an injunction in state court after purchasing foreclosed properties; they alleged Roberts and others continued occupying properties and collecting rents.
- Roberts repeatedly filed frivolous notices of removal to federal court; district court remanded and found removals not objectively reasonable, awarding Cobblestone fees and directing Roberts to show cause under Rule 11 and the court’s inherent power.
- The district court imposed sanctions: a $2,000 Rule 11/inherent fine, orders to pay Cobblestone substantial attorneys’ fees and costs, a $250/day coercive contempt fine (accumulating to roughly $57,000), and ultimately ordered Roberts’s arrest for civil contempt when he failed to pay or appear.
- Roberts appealed several sanctions and fee awards; while the appeal was pending he and Cobblestone negotiated a consent order in which Roberts agreed to pay the $2,000 fine and $55,571.76 in fees/costs in exchange for release and dismissal of remaining contempt sanctions and accrued post-judgment interest.
- Roberts paid per the consent order, was released from custody, and filed the consent order in this appeal; the Eleventh Circuit sua sponte addressed whether the appeal remained justiciable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Cobblestone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of coercive contempt sanctions ($57,000 daily fines and incarceration) | Contempt orders and sanctions were improper and procedurally flawed | Roberts purged contempt by complying; appeal moot | Appeal moot as Roberts purged contempt while appeal was pending; no live controversy |
| Validity of $2,000 Rule 11/inherent fine | Fine was erroneous and procedurally defective | Fine was properly imposed; Roberts paid it | Moot: payment of civil fine rendered challenge nonjusticiable |
| Challenge to awards of Cobblestone’s costs and attorneys’ fees (~$55,571.76) | Fees awards were improper; procedural errors preserved | Parties entered a binding consent settlement; Roberts paid agreed sum | Moot: Roberts signed and complied with a consent compromise releasing remaining claims; objective manifestation of abandonment |
| District court’s power to enter the May 7, 2012 consent order after appeal filed | (Argued consent modified purge conditions) | Consent order is a settlement resolving the appeal; Roberts accepted relief | Court lacked jurisdiction to ENTER that order after appeal, but Roberts’s agreement and compliance nonetheless mooted the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466 (11th Cir. 1997) (federal courts must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction at all stages)
- Chairs v. Burgess, 143 F.3d 1432 (11th Cir. 1998) (compliance with coercive civil contempt order moots the contemnor's challenge)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 955 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1992) (once civil contempt is purged, no live controversy remains)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (federal courts possess inherent authority to sanction bad-faith litigation conduct)
- Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 701 F.3d 369 (11th Cir. 2012) (settlement between parties generally renders a case moot)
- Fidelcor Mortg. Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 820 F.2d 367 (11th Cir. 1987) (payment of a judgment and acknowledgment of satisfaction can moot an appeal)