United States Ex Rel. Tingley v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., 705 F. App'x 342

Background

Relator William Tingley repeatedly sued banks and developers over alleged contamination and removal of soil at a Berkey & Gay (B&G) site adjacent to his property, bringing various claims (including qui tam / False Claims Act theories) across multiple suits that were dismissed previously on the merits or on procedural grounds.
In the present suit Tingley alleged Fifth Third and PNC violated Capital Purchase Program disclosure obligations by not revealing CERCLA / NREPA liabilities; he voluntarily dismissed the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after Fifth Third moved to dismiss.
Defendants moved for sanctions; the district court granted sanctions under its inherent authority, finding the claim meritless, counsel should have known it was meritless, and the suit was pursued for an improper purpose (bad faith).
The district court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs and entered a permanent injunction requiring Tingley to post a $50,000 bond before filing future suits against these defendants.
The district court calculated fees by the lodestar method, reducing defendants’ requested hours and rates to reach a total award of $81,000.
Tingley appealed, contesting notice of sanctions under inherent authority, the bad-faith finding, and the fee calculation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sanctions under the court's inherent authority were appropriate for bad faith/improper purpose	Tingley argued his claims were colorable and not litigated in bad faith	Defendants argued the claim was meritless, rehashed prior rejected theories, and was filed to force needless defense costs	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; claims meritless, counsel should have known, suit pursued for improper purpose (bad faith)
Whether Tingley received fair notice and opportunity re: inherent-authority sanctions	Tingley contended he lacked fair notice he needed to rebut subjective bad faith and that defendants did not invoke inherent authority clearly	Defendants pointed to briefing that invoked bad-faith standards and cited controlling precedent	Rejected: briefing sufficiently put Tingley on notice; due-process argument fails
Whether the district court properly applied the lodestar method and reduced fee request	Tingley asserted defendants billed unreasonable hours and the court misallocated time between motions	Defendants submitted affidavits of fees and the district court reduced hours and rates before awarding fees	Affirmed: court gave clear reasons, reduced claimed hours, and did not abuse discretion in awarding $81,000
Whether injunctive bond (pre-filing $50,000) was proper	Tingley implied sanctions and bond were improper or excessive	Defendants argued a bond and injunction were justified given repetitive, frivolous filings	Impliedly affirmed as part of sanctions; court’s overall sanction package upheld

Key Cases Cited

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1989) (inherent powers authorize sanctions for bad-faith litigation conduct)
First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2002) (standards and restraint for inherent-authority sanctions)
Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 826 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2016) (three-part test for inherent-authority sanctions)
Metz v. Unizan Bank, 655 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2011) (sanctions where counsel pressed previously rejected, identical claims)
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752 (1980) (notice and opportunity required before awarding attorneys’ fees)
Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2004) (lodestar method for fee calculations)