864 F. Supp. 2d 1241
N.D. Fla.2012Background
- This case involves a retaliation/whistleblower action brought by Plaintiff Smith under SOX and Florida FWA.
- Defendants PSI, PBS, and GCTC moved for attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 448.104 and sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 after appellate outcomes.
- The district court and Eleventh Circuit previously granted summary judgment for defendants on both SOX and FWA claims, and denied various sanctions motions.
- The magistrate judge recommended partial grant/denial of fees and sanctions, and the district court adopted the Report and Recommendation.
- Counsel representation issues arose, including pending/withdrawal notices and a request to file new declarations (Kohn).
- The court held that Defendants’ fee request under § 448.104 is not preempted by SOX, and recommended fee award to Defendants for the FWA claim, while denying § 1927 sanctions and denying Rule 11 sanctions for Plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption of Fla. 448.104 by SOX | SOX preempts FWA fees as a violation of Supremacy Clause. | SOX preemption does not apply; FWA fee provision is not an obstacle to SOX. | SOX does not preempt the FWA fee provision. |
| Johnson’s Kohn affidavit declaration | Kohn’s declaration should be admitted to support the case. | Declaration untimely and unauthorized; no good cause. | Motion to file Kohn’s declaration denied. |
| Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 against Plaintiffs counsel | Counsels’ conduct justifies sanctions due to vexatious multiplications of proceedings. | No bad-faith or egregious conduct; sanctions not warranted. | Sanctions denied; § 1927 motion rejected. |
| Rule 11 sanctions against Defendants | Defendants misrepresented law/facts in post-hearing submissions. | Corrective notices addressed issues; no Rule 11 violation. | Rule 11 sanctions denied; costs awarded to Defendants for opposing Rule 11 motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir.2009) (preemption discussion on parallel state/federal claims; discretionary vs mandatory fee regimes)
- Brinn v. Tidewater Transp. Dist. Comm’n, 242 F.3d 227 (4th Cir.2001) (Supremacy Clause analysis; preemption when state fee provision conflicts with federal statute)
- Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (U.S. 2000) (conflict preemption; impossible to comply with both or obstacle to federal objectives)
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (fee-shifting standards; Christiansburg generally governs frivolity standard in fee awards)
- Alansari v. Tropic Star Seafood, Inc., 395 Fed.Appx. 629 (11th Cir.2010) ( Eleventh Circuit on fee awards where federal/state claims share facts)
- Johnson v. Stein Mart, Inc., 440 Fed.Appx. 795 (11th Cir.2011) (SOX/Stein Mart retaliation framework; relevant to fee/preemption analysis)
- Jankey v. Song Koo Lee, N/A (Cal. Ct.App.2010) (discussed in Rule 11 context for preemption exhibit history)