Sorenson v. Wolfson
683 F. App'x 33
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Sigurd Sorenson (pro se) filed suit and pursued motions including a motion for reconsideration; defendant Stanley Wolfson sought sanctions and fees after district court denied relief.
- Wolfson moved for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 17 U.S.C. § 505 (copyright attorney’s fees), 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the court’s inherent powers; the district court denied all requests.
- The district court found Sorenson’s reconsideration motion meritless but not objectively unreasonable and declined to issue an anti‑suit injunction, noting the litigation did not rise to egregious abuse of process.
- Wolfson’s § 505 fee motion failed for procedural reasons: he did not include a timely estimate of fees within 14 days of judgment and did not show excusable neglect for the delay.
- The district court declined § 1927 and inherent‑power sanctions because Sorenson’s conduct, while lacking merit in parts, did not demonstrate the bad faith or egregious conduct required for such sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wolfson) | Defendant's Argument (Sorenson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 11 sanctions were warranted | Sorenson’s postjudgment filings were unreasonable and harassing | Filings were meritless but not objectively unreasonable | Denied — no abuse of discretion in declining sanctions |
| Whether an anti‑suit injunction was appropriate | Litigation history and conduct warranted injunction to prevent harassment | Litigation did not show egregious abuse of process | Denied — district court reasonably found Safir factors not met |
| Whether § 505 fees should be awarded | Timely fee estimate unnecessary given case complexity | Fee estimate was untimely and no excusable neglect shown | Denied — procedural failure to provide timely estimate under Rule 54(d)(2) |
| Whether § 1927 or inherent‑power sanctions apply | Sorenson multiplied proceedings and acted in bad faith (e.g., withdrawn claims, contradictory affidavits) | Conduct was not so completely without merit or in bad faith to justify sanctions | Denied — absence of requisite bad faith or egregious conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Kropelnicki v. Siegel, 290 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2002) (Rule 11 standard)
- Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243 (2d Cir. 1985) (claims with no chance of success violate Rule 11)
- Ipcon Collections LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 698 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2012) (discretionary nature of Rule 11 sanctions)
- MacDraw Inc. v. CIT Group Equipment Fin., Inc., 73 F.3d 1253 (2d Cir. 1996) (caution in imposing Rule 11 sanctions)
- Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir. 1986) (factors for anti‑suit injunctions)
- Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 378 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2004) (excusable neglect and fee‑motion timing)
- In re 60 East 80th Street Equities, Inc., 218 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2000) (§ 1927 requires bad‑faith conduct)
- Oliveri v. Thompson, 803 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1986) (inherent‑power sanctions standard)
- Sassower v. Field, 973 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1992) (examples of egregious conduct warranting sanctions)