883 F. Supp. 2d 121
D.D.C.2012Background
- Robertson sued Cartinhour and related entities; Robertson I jury verdict awarded Cartinhour $7 million including $3.5 million punitive damages.
- This case seeks sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against Ty Clevenger for abusive litigation tactics in Robertson II.
- Robertson II was filed in the Southern District of New York while Robertson I was pending in this Court, and the NY action was later transferred to this court.
- This Court previously sanctioned Robertson and Clevenger in Robertson I and related proceedings for groundless and vexatious filings.
- Robertson II was dismissed as duplicative and improper, and the court found Clevenger acted in bad faith and with disregard for the judicial process.
- The current order awards Cartinhour reasonable fees and costs incurred by the NY attorneys (Yuzek) in Robertson II and requires recalculation and limited subsequent briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under § 1927 are warranted | Clevenger multiplied proceedings unreasonably | Clevenger acted recklessly or in bad faith | Sanctions warranted under § 1927 |
| Whether Robertson II justified sanctions based on conduct in this case | Bad faith delay/harassment | Conduct to evade jurisdiction improper | Sanctions imposed for bad‑faith conduct commencing Feb 25, 2011 |
| Whether sanctions may be imposed for conduct in other courts | Imposing sanctions only in this case is insufficient | Sanctions may extend across related proceedings | Courts may sanction for acts in other courts if bad faith evidence supports |
| How to determine and recalculate fees and costs | Prejudgment and post‑judgment costs should be included | Only time spent in Robertson II matters should be compensable | Cartinhour awarded fees for specific NY time (Feb 25, 2011–Mar 31, 2012) with recalculation guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. United States, 964 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (sanctions for continued unreasonable conduct under § 1927; continuing obligation on attorneys)
- Huthnance v. Dist. of Columbia, 793 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.D.C. 2011) (standard of recklessness/bad faith under § 1927)
- LaPrade v. Kidder Peabody & Co., 146 F.3d 899 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (issue of whether recklessness or bad faith required under § 1927)
- Fritz v. Honda Motor Co., 818 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (repeated actions causing unnecessary expenditure of time and money justified sanctions)
- Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sweeney Corp., 792 F.2d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (unfounded/undeveloped claims sanctionable)
- The Jolly Group, Ltd. v. Medline Indus., Inc., 435 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2006) (continuing duty to dismiss nonviable claims under § 1927)
- McLaughlin v. Bradlee, 803 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (satellite litigation and limiting discovery in sanctions)