*1 Eligius FRANZEN and Hannah
Franzen, Plaintiffs,
v. COMPANY,
DEERE AND Defendant. COMPANY,
DEERE AND
Applicant-Appellant, OFFICE, P.C.,
DONOHUE LAW
Resister-Appellee.
No. 86-837.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
July Riley,
David L. Yagla, Lindeman & Wаterloo, Rose, Moline, Ill., and Eric C. applicant-appellant. Brown, Brown,
Scott D. Kinsey & Funkhouser, City, resister-appel- Mason lee.
WOLLE, Justice.
Much of the
products
drama of this
liabil
ity
already
case has
played
been
out in
previous
which led to two
deci
sions of this court. See Franzen v. Deere
Co.,
(Iowa 1983) (Fran
&
N.W.2d 730
I);
Co.,
zen
Franzen v. Deere
&
(Iowa 1985) (Franzen II).
N.W.2d 660
At
issue in
this third
is the defendant
Company’s
Deere and
application to re
quire
plaintiffs’ lawyer
the attor
ney fees Deere incurred in successfully de
fending the
prosecuting
lawsuit and
appeals.
two
applica
Deere did not file its
tion
the district сourt until after we had
summary judgment
affirmed
for Deere in
plaintiffs
lawyer
and their
contended the
was filed too late
the district court
to decide
rejected
issue. The trial court
*2
challenge
jurisdiction
to
of
particular
fronts, contending
this
it
that was filed too late
case,
hearing
plenary
but
a
the court
give
to
to
the
decide it and
application
found no merit in the
attor-
entirely
that it was otherwise
mer-
without
ney
fees and dismissed it. On
it.
attorney
its
Deere seeks to
not
We do
reach the substantive issues
lawyer,
the
only
plaintiffs’
on
dropping its
on
the
which
district court found the appli-
against
plaintiffs
claim
the
themselves.
cation was
merit.
without
We conclude at
application
indeed
We conclude the
was
the
that
threshold
the court was without
to
filed too late
district сourt au-
the
to
application,
consider the
be-
thority
it,
to act on
and
af-
we therefore
jurisdiction
cause it lost
of
particular
firm.
case once
the
had been af-
Eligius
injured
Plaintiff
Franzen
firmed without remand in Franzen II.
using
forage
while
a Deere-manufactured
Rule of
80(a),
Iowa
Civil Procedure
as
wagon
June
The
on
1979.
Franzens
April 1,1986,
amended effective
in
provides
damage
against
Deere on
a
action
pertinent part:
response
In
to
March
asserting
to
the action
motion
dismiss
signature
motion,
every
Cоunsel’s
to
by
two-year
barred
statute of limita
Iowa’s
pleading, or
paper
other
shall be deemed
tions,
their
petition
Franzens amended
a certificate that: counsel has read the
allege
wag
they did not
the
that
discover
motion, pleading, or other
paper; that
January of
on’s defect until
1981 notwith
the best of
knowledge,
counsel’s
informa-
standing
diligence
part.
due
on their
The
tion,
belief,
and
formed after reasonable
district court sustained Deere’s motion to
inquiry,
grounded
it is well
in fact and is
dismiss,
I
but in Franzen we
and
rеversed
by existing
good
warranted
or
law
a
opportuni
remanded to allow Franzens the
argument
extension,
faith
for the
modifi-
ty
present
supporting
evidence
dis
a
cation,
existing law;
or reversal of
and
covery
exception
governing
to the
two-
interрosed
it
any improper
that
is not
year
of
statute
limitations.
Iowa Code
purpose, such as to harass or cause an
614.1(2) (1979);
I,
see
Franzen
§
unnecessary delay or needless increase in
Following
N.W.2d at 782-88.
remand and
motion,
litigation.
plead-
the cost of
If a
completion
discovery,
of
Deere moved for
ing,
paper
signed,
or other
is not
it shall
summary judgment
of
based
its statute
signed promptly
be stricken unless it is
grant
limitations defense. The trial court
after the omission is called to the atten-
motion,
ed the
affirmed
sum
we
thаt
pleader
tion of the
or movant.
If a mo-
II,
mary
finding
Franzen
that
tion, pleading,
paper
signed
or
other
genuine
no
the “record shows
issue of fact
rule,
court, upon
of this
the
violation
supporting application
discovery
initiative,
upon
motion or
its own
shall
Franzen
dure served case 11. We notice that itself. the district court may trial courts should not and will not coun- “upon act оr upon motion its own pleadings, motions, initiative,” tenance misuse of or strongly suggesting that papers. important The other court last court’s authority to take such action arises mandatory sentence of the rule is char- the lawsuit in which viola- court, upon acter: “the or tions its have occurred. ” *3 initiative, impose appropriate own shall any It that ap follows motion or of the rule. sanctions for violation Iowa plication impose 80(a) rule sanctions 80(a) added). (emphasis R.Civ.P. This new must be filed the underlying whilе action is concerning sanctions, language like the pending and the authority before court’s rule, language the federal identical of was act on expires. issues within that lawsuit intended to reduce the reluctance of courts See Court, Rerat Law Firm v. Iowa Dist. impose parties sanctions and attor- (Iowa 226, 1985) (distin 375 N.W.2d 230 neys responsibilities who violate their guishing jurisdiction particular case parties. the advisory court and other The subject jurisdiction from per- matter and in accompanied committee note which amend- jurisdiction). sonam Ordinarily the authori ment of the federal rule to include that last ty of the district court to decide substan sentence states: particular tive issues in a case terminates by Greater the district attention courts to judgment when a final post- entered and pleading and abuses and the im- judgment have been motions resolved. A positions appropriate, of when sanctions judgment, final that conclusively one deter discourage dilatory should or abusive rights parties mines the the finally of help tactics аnd litiga- to streamline the controversy, decides right creates a of process lessening tion by frivolous claims appeal and also removes from the district or defenses. power court authority or to return the Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil pаrties positions. original their Snyder Procedure, 165, (1983); 97 F.R.D. 198 see County, 416, v. Allamakee 402 N.W.2d 418 Kane, Wright, C. A. & M. Miller 5 Federal (Iowa 1987); Transp., Ritter, Robco Inc. v. (1986 Practice and Procedure 1331-34 §§ (Iowa 497, 1984). 356 N.W.2d 499 In the Supp.). procedendo absence of a remand or direct case, howеver, The in threshold issue ing court, further in the trial is whether Deere its motion filed too late to jurisdiction of the district court termi give the jurisdiction to consider it. nates both subject as to the and the though 80(a) Even based its Deere rule matter judgment when a district court has motion оn information available to it when Sarcone, been affirmed. Jersild v. 163 the district court heard its motion for sum- 78, (Iowa 1968); N.W.2d 79 see Dunton v. mary judgment 3, 1984, on December McCook, 444, 448, 942, 120 Iowa 94 N.W. 20, January Deere waited until 1986 to file (1903)(“So questions 944 far as the at issue filing deprived its motion. belated Deere’s suit, concerned, upon affirmance, were the district court of to decide the part became a past.”). of the irrevocable attorney fees issue. 80(a), Neither rule its federal counterpart While juris a district court retains (Fed.R.Civ.P. 11), any during nor оther appeal Iowa rule diction from its or statute filing judgment sets a deadline for the of judgment a to enforce the itself, language motion to sanctions. The does district court not have the 80(a) clear, however, of rule does make differently that to rеvisit decide request such a already is to be filed in the judgment. lawsuit issues concluded allegedly which the Woodbury violation has oc- See Kern v. County, 234 Iowa curred, 1321, 1323, 14 separately (1944)(after not filed action at 688 N.W.2d provides law or in The equity. rule judgment affirmance of final district court entry pay” of “an order to which clearly power has inherent to enforce means an order underlying judgment). entered but not new to render a See (Second) Judg- generally Restatement tions. Simultaneous determination of the 18-26, (1982). underlying 161-260 ments at merits action and the §§ 80(a) alleged merits violations im- Deere’s We hold that permit all such related would issues to be sanctions, thirty-three pose single appeal. See Duane resolved days the final after we affirmed v. Roofing Smelser Co. Armm Consul Frangen of the district court tants, Inc,, (E.D.Mich. F.Supp. give the district court au- filed too late to 1986). Here, delayed of its thority to it. consider deprived application for principles, we hold Based the same opportunity district court of the to decide did not authori that the district court have they ripe the rule issues when were ty power to tax to exercise its inherent disposition. for final This third Berkey See costs. attorney fees as consequence delay. the unfortunate of that 894, 896, Thompson, 126 Iowa 102 N.W. (1906) (district court has no au Deere cites several cases from federal *4 pass thority appeal after courts that have allowed file and case). equity in an proceed requests imposition to retax costs with for of at torney entry after of final judgment fees question not reach the whether We need See, e.g., Obin v. District the trial court. its to im- the district court lost No. 9 Ass’n the Int’l Machinists & 80(a) pose even before we sanctions Workers, Aerospace (8th 661 F.2d 684 judgment in the had affirmed final Cir.1981)(collateral attorney claim for fees case, judgment ini- such as whеn the final rights may under statute filed after civil be tially entered. We note that the advis- may judgment, final be decided the dis concerning ory committee note federal rule during appeal, trict court but should be 11 states: piecemeal promptly ap decidеd to avoid seeking should party A sanctions Watkins, peals); Knighton v. 616 F.2d offending to the court and the notice (5th Cir.1980) (claim attorney for 797-98 upon discovering a party promptly basis independent 1988 is fees under U.S.C. § doing for so. The time when sanctions sought may and in district court actiоn be imposed rests in the discretion are to be note, entry judgment). of final We However, judge. it is antici- of the trial however, that those cases Deere cites are pleadings pated that the case inapposite they attorney concerned because normally Rule 11 sanctions issue under per statutes that fee awards under federal determined at the end of the will be recovery independent pro mit such a as an litigation, and in the case of motions at original ceeding supplemental to the action. the motion is decided or the time when shortly thereafter. Overnight more akin to This case is Chicago Industrial 200-01. Transportation Co. v. 97 F.R.D. at (7th Cir.1983). Co., Tire F.2d 789 counsel, urge or the court on its We do plaintiff’s ordered the There a district court motion, at the request sаnctions own attorney attorneys the defendant’s time rule violations occur. earliest authority of 28 United States fees on the party, or the The determination whether (Supp.1981), pro- section 1927 which Code both, party’s lawyer, or have violated the costs, imposition of excess includ- vides for the deter- inextricably rule is entwined with fees, attorney any attorney who ing underlying of issues in the action. mination “multiplies any case un- considering optimum time for Certainly vexatiously.” The defend- reasonably and deciding impose whether to sanctions however, motion, not filed until ant’s soon after violations have oc- is a time twenty days after the the un- entry not later than the of final curred and had affirmed. The derlying action been in the district court. Whenever the attor- appeals court of reversed mer- federal practicable judge decides the who award, “delay ney explaining that also fee underlying lawsuit should its of if motions effort” would be avoided whether to sanc- wasted decide attorney “inexorably fees and costs underlying bound to thе merits of the case” BURGESS, Appellee, Melvin appeal per- are “either before an during pendency fected or CORPORATION, GREAT PLAINS BAG Co., Overnight Transp. on the merits.” and American Motorists Insurance 793; 697 F.2d at see Duane Smelser Roof- Company, Appellants. Co., F.Supр. (applying ing at 824 sim- No. 86-882. reasoning ilar motion for attor- belated 11). ney under Federal R.Civ.P. Supreme Court of Iowa. July The district court had no consider fees when it was not filed until after our II affirmed
judgment disposing of this case. On that
ground we affirm the district court’s dis application.
missal of Deere’s
AFFIRMED. CARTER, except
All Justices concur
HARRIS, LARSON, JJ., who specially.
concur
CARTER, (concurring specially). Justice
I concur in the result because I believe district court was correct its conclu- plaintiffs’
sion that claims were not friv- agree I
olous. do not with the conclusion opinion
drawn in this court’s that the dis-
trict court has no to consider a
claim under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure presented which is after the conclu- primary litigation.
sion of the appears preferable
It to me that it is
withhold the of claims for sanctions primary litigation
under rule until the finally concluded. LARSON, JJ., join
HARRIS and
special concurrence.