657 F. App'x 685
9th Cir.2016Background
- Attorney Boothe represented Rolando Hernandez in an employment-discrimination trial; jurors later returned a $1,284,000 verdict for Hernandez and final judgment was entered.
- During trial Boothe allegedly made facial movements (nods, mouth movements) observed by jurors and discussed a hallway conversation with Assistant City Attorney Debra Quinn about potential testimony.
- Quinn wrote the judge claiming she felt intimidated and was a “client” of the City’s outside counsel; she remained counsel of record for the City throughout the trial.
- The district court declared a mistrial based on the facial movements and the hallway conversation, then issued a show-cause order and found Boothe in contempt for the hallway interaction, describing it as done in bad faith.
- The court imposed a monetary sanction of $145,765.43 to reimburse the City for defense expenses attributable to the mistrial, relying partly on the facial movements (which the court found were not in bad faith) and partly on the contempt finding.
- Boothe appealed the sanction; the Ninth Circuit held the appeal was initially premature but became ripe after final judgment and reviewed the sanction and contempt findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boothe) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court validly imposed monetary sanctions based on Boothe’s facial movements | Movements were caused by a medical condition; not bad faith or contempt | Movements looked like witness coaching and wasted court time, justifying sanctions | Reversed as to sanctions based on facial movements — court found no bad faith and such conduct was not sanctionable |
| Whether Boothe’s hallway conversation with Quinn constituted witness intimidation supporting contempt and sanctions | Conversation was with Quinn as City liaison/counsel, not a witness; no clear intimidation of a witness | Conversation intimidated Quinn and was bad-faith conduct warranting contempt and fee-shifting | Contempt finding vacated and remanded for further consideration — Ninth Circuit questioned whether Quinn was acting as witness or counsel and required clearer justification for monetary sanction |
| Whether the district court made the necessary explicit bad-faith finding to award fees under its inherent powers | Argued insufficient or unclear findings tying bad faith to fee award | City argued district court made explicit bad-faith findings (re: hallway conduct) | Court reiterated that fee awards under inherent powers require explicit bad-faith findings; result reversed/vacated in part and remanded for clearer rationale |
| Whether causal link existed between alleged intimidation and mistrial to support compensatory sanction | Little or no causal link: Quinn was counsel of record and likely could not be a planned contested witness | City contended Quinn was listed as a potential witness and prejudice from intimidation caused mistrial | Court found the record undermines a clear causal link and remanded for the district court to justify purpose and causation for any monetary sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cato v. Fresno City, 220 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (premature appeals of sanctions cured by later final judgment)
- Stanley v. Woodford, 449 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir.) (procedural ripeness of sanctions appeals)
- Primus Automotive Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644 (9th Cir.) (inherent-power fee-shifting requires explicit bad-faith finding)
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court) (limits on use of inherent powers; bad-faith requirement)
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court) (purposes of civil contempt: coercion and compensation)