Sandolph v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
6:19-cv-00516
W.D. Tex.Oct 27, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Twyla Sandolph sued Martin Marietta Materials (MM) for employment discrimination; MM moved to dismiss in 2019 arguing some claims exceeded Sandolph’s Texas Workforce Commission/EEOC Charge.
- Sandolph later moved for Rule 11 sanctions against MM, claiming MM’s 12(b)(6) motion contained false statements about the scope of the Charge; discovery revealed MM conducted an internal investigation beyond the named individual in the Charge.
- Trial was begun and then declared a mistrial after Sandolph’s counsel, Peter Costea, displayed a lewd figurine to the jury that was not on the exhibit list, failed to admit it into evidence, and left it in view after judicial admonition.
- MM moved for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the court’s inherent authority against Costea for causing the mistrial; Sandolph’s Rule 11 motion sought sanctions against MM.
- The court denied Sandolph’s Rule 11 motion as untimely and meritless and awarded MM $21,310.65 (fees incurred opposing the motion) jointly against Costea and his firm.
- The court granted MM’s § 1927 motion, finding Costea acted with reckless disregard and multiplied the proceedings; it awarded MM $23,938.77 against Costea personally and ordered payment of the combined total $45,249.42 within 30 days; Sandolph was not personally liable.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and merits of Sandolph's Rule 11 motion | Sandolph: MM made false statements in its 12(b)(6) brief; discovery proved them false | MM: Motion was untimely, conflates EEOC/TWC scope with MM internal investigation, and was waived by delay | Denied as untimely and meritless; MM awarded $21,310.65 against Costea and his firm for defending the motion |
| Trial misconduct and sanctions standard under § 1927/inherent authority | Sandolph/Costea: Figurine photo was produced; showing was inadvertent, not willful; no deliberate disobedience | MM: Costea failed to disclose/exhibit/admit object, showed it to jury, and left it visible after admonition—constituting reckless, bad-faith conduct that multiplied proceedings | Court found Costea acted with reckless disregard; sanctions appropriate under § 1927 (court declined to reach inherent-authority argument) |
| Amount and allocation of sanctions and personal liability | Costea contended errors were inadvertent; Sandolph argued she is not personally liable | MM sought $23,938.77 (trial fees/expenses) plus fees for opposing Rule 11; requested Costea be held personally liable | Court awarded $23,938.77 against Costea individually and $21,310.65 jointly against Costea and The Law Offices of Peter Costea; total $45,249.42; Sandolph not personally liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988) (attorney must act after opponent's Rule 11 violation is brought to attention)
- Trevino v. Holly Sugar Corp., 811 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1987) (prompt notice is required for Rule 11 challenges)
- Baulch v. Johns, 70 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 1995) (§ 1927 sanctions require bad faith or reckless disregard)
- Vaughan v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 62 F.4th 199 (5th Cir. 2023) (sanctions under § 1927 are assessed against individual attorneys)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 280 F.3d 519 (5th Cir. 2002) (district courts must make detailed factual findings when imposing sanctions)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts should generally rely on statutory rules before invoking inherent power)