*1 ment did not show his participation in two
predicate acts, provides grounds for rever-
sal of his conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Teague’s REVERSED, conviction is the other defendants’ convictions are AF-
FIRMED. DONALDSON,
Jurldine A. Plaintiff-Appellant, CLARK, al., Paul V. et Defendants-Appellees.
No. 85-8270. United States Court Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
June
James W. Howard and Ware, R. David Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant. III, Charles R. Ga., Adams Valley, Ft. for Clark. McDougald,
Alvin Valley, Ga., Ft. Harris. Allen,
Kathryn Gen., Asst. Atty. Atlanta, Ga., for Wilcox.
Gregory Homer, Ga., Ft. Valley, for Wil- der. Kalish, Macon,
Katherine M. Ga., for Shelley. RONEY, Judge,
Before Chief GODBOLD, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, EDMONDSON, and Judges. Circuit GODBOLD, Judge: Circuit
I. BACKGROUND The court took this case en banc to con- sider and standards for the im- position of sanctions under Rule Fed.R.
Civ.P., as amended in 1983.1 Motions, Signing Pleadings, roborating
1. Rule and circumstances is abolished. The Sanctions, Papers; provides signature Other attorney amended: party of an or constitutes a by plead- certificate him that he has read the motion, Every pleading, paper and other of a motion, ing, paper; or other that to the best of party represented by attorney an shall be knowledge, his information signed and belief formed by attorney at least one of record in name, inquiry grounded after reasonable it is well in his individual whose address shall be by existing fact and is warranted good represented by stated. A attorney law or a who is not an extension, motion, argument sign pleading, faith for the shall his modifi- cation, law, existing paper or reversal of Except other and state and that it his address. interposed specifically any improper purpose, is provided by when otherwise not rule statute, pleadings unnecessary such as need not to harass or to cause be verified or by delay accompanied equity litiga- affidavit. The rule in or needless increase in the cost motion, pleading, paper that the averment of an answer under oath tion. If a or other testimony signed, must be overcome of two it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly witnesses or of one witness sustained cor- after the omission is called to acy. plaintiff submitted consequence of a On March as a This case arose Judge response to defendant Georgia court which Jarrell affidavit suit in state his wife sought plaintiff’s a divorce from counsel Donaldson Wilcox’s affidavit and the divorce support plain- Donaldson. While Jurldine an affidavit submitted Donaldson filed pending, Jurldine attorneys’ case was response to motions tiff’s in the U.S. 42 U.S.C. suit under response all Rule 11 issues. § fees and in 1983^ Court, Georgia, alleging that M.D. District plaintiff’s counsel stated The affidavit of color of conspired under persons various allegations complaint that the factual the di- unlawfully expedite law to state and supported by admissible evidence were marriage, her proceedings, terminate vorce supported legal arguments were visiting perhaps and prevent her from by authority. husband, thereby de- reconciling her granted court On March 29 the district rights under the Fourth priving her of of defend- summary judgment on behalf pro- Amendments without Fourteenth despite ample opportuni- ants and held that *4 complaint sought various cess of law. complaint the was ty to demonstrate that including and com- relief actual forms of fact, plaintiff’s counsel grounded in well damages, in- damages, punitive pensatory support. The proffer such had failed pending divorce against relief the junctive were warranted court found that sanctions against further harassment action and pay counsel to under Rule 11 and ordered defendants, attorneys’ fees. and costs and and to reimburse to the clerk a fine $500 to dismiss and for filed motions Defendants attorneys’ all fees and the defendants for attorneys’ fees. an award defending reasonably incurred in expenses 21, held hearing 1985 a February On action, determined these amounts to be the dismiss. The focus on the motions to of affidavits by the court on submission question hearing away from the the shifted Clark, Donaldson v. defense counsel. allegations complaint the of whether (M.D.Ga.1985). F.R.D. 526 the for relief and toward stated a claim appeal panel of this court reversed On any factual question of whether there was judgment and the Rule summary the the end allegations. Near for those basis Clark, 786 F.2d Donaldson v. sanctions. said: hearing the court Cir.1986).2 (11th The court voted the Now, has entertained since the Court banc, thereby vacating panel case en record, motions these matters outside opinion. as motions dismiss will be considered you summary judgment. Either for record within one
may supplement AND OF JUDGMENT II. FINALITY week, you if wish to do so. WITH RULE FAILURE TO COMPLY REQUIREMENTS asked counsel Jurldine 56 NOTICE The court personal financial statements submit adopt the rendition of the facts We client and himself, partners and his his law panel history set out procedural for use these statements were advised that 1571-74. opinion at 786 F.2d impose the court decided in the event under Rule 11. agree panel We appealable decision was affidavits, district court’s one All defendants submitted adopt merits and its judgment on the February final February 22 others on on and the holding that issue. Id. at conspir- on 26-28, participation denying 1574-75. motion, including paper, a reason- or other pleader or movant. If a attention of the the pleading, motion, paper signed attorney’s or other fee. able rule, court, upon motion of this violation contention, initiative, impose upon Contrary plaintiffs case is this upon shall or its own it, signed represented party, person who has been divorced Because Jurldine not moot. sanction, both, appropriate injunctive which request her husband her pay to the other moot, include an order to parties the remainder of her is now but relief expenses reasonable the amount of the are not moot. claims filing pleading, because of the incurred adopt part againstplaintiff's Wealso of the sitionof sanctions coun- Although timing panelopinionholding selunderRule11. sanctionsrestsinthediscretionofthetrial thatthedistrictcourt granting erredin summaryjudgment, defendants'motionsfor judge, anticipated convertedfrommo "it is thatinthecaseof giving pleadings normally dismiss, tionsto movingparty days without the non- thesanctionsissueunderRule11 ten noticethatthemo willbe determinedat the endof litigation, tionsweretobesoconverted.Id.at 1575- the andinthecaseofmotionsat authority by the timewhenthe motionis decidedor 76. In additionto the cited panel shortly onthisissuewealsonotethat: thereafter." Committee (here- 11, clearly Noteto Rule as amendedin1983 It is whenevera district the lawin thiscircuitthat "Advisory Note"). judge after causewehaveheldthat the districtcourt Committee Be- convertsa 12(b)(6) motionto dismissintoonefor giveplaintiff's summaryjudgmentby considering failedto ten-dayperiod counselthe full mat- opposi- pleadings judge tosubmitmaterialin ters outsidethe summaryjudgment give partiesten-days tionto the converted must heis so all noticethat converting motions,thedistrictcourtshouldwaituntil themotion.Herron (11thCir.1982); Beck, 125, 693F.2d counselhashadsuchan deciding before impose Hunter, whetherto Rule11sanc- Underwoodv. 604F.2d imposing (5thCir.1979). tions. If thecourtdoesconsider following Property Management sanctionsunderRule standardsand Investments, & guide should it in Lewis, Inc.v. 752F.2d Cir. deciding appropriate 1985). give whethersanctionsare Failureto suchnotice"will *5 they andwhat shouldbe. resultin reversalanda remand."Id. at Although require provide 606. thatanoral Rule56doesnot Rule11wasamendedin1983to hearing summary (underlinings beheldona indicateadditionsandbrack- judgment non-movingparty amendments): motion,the ets deletionsin the 1983 shouldbeinformedofthedateasofwhich signature attorney party The of an or the courtwillconsiderthe motion.See constitutesa certificate himthat he hasreadthe Florida, 516, pleading,motion, Moorev. State of 703F.2d or other (11thCir.1983). purpose paper; knowledge, 519 The thattothebestofhis ten-dayrequirement notify parties isto good information, [there and b9lief is maydispose ground supportit; thatthe court of the case andthat it is not summaryjudgment interposed dela~y] so that "thenon-mov for formedafter rea- ingparty inquiry grounded willhavean to mar sonable it is well rebut[] byexisting shalits resourcesand... themo fact and is warranted law summaryjudgment every good argument tionfor fac or a faith for theexten- legalargument sion,modification, tual and available."Id.3 or reversalofexist- ing interposed law, Wethereforereversethedistrictcourt's and that it is not any improperpurpose, grantingsummaryjudgment suchas to order of defendantsand remandthe casefor infavor unnecessarydelay harassor to cause or needlessincreasein thecostof liti- proceedings. further gation. III. SANCTIONSUNDERRULE11 language Fed.R.Civ.P.11. This "stresses prefilinginquiry holding summaryjudg the needfor some into Our thatthe satisfy mentin favorof defendantsmustbe re boththe factsandthe lawto duty imposedby compels impo- affirmative the rule." versed usalsotoreversethe parties extremely exception long- 3. Thedistrictcourt'sfailuretoallowthe an standing comply cessitatesreversalandremand.Thiscasedoes not limited to the days supplement ten therecordonthecon- rulein thiscircuitthata failureto 12(b)(6) ten-day requirement verted motionswasnotharmlesserror. withthe notice ne- PropertyManagement, In andDenisv. MutualInsurance 752F.2dat 605-07 Liberty Company, present unique such circumstancesofharm- (11thCir.1986), 846, 791F.2d 850 becauseofthe lesserror. unique presented,recognized circumstances we 1556 forwarding counsel depended on he 11 as Rule Note.
Advisory Committee of the bar. member another “reduce frivolous is intended amended and to deter claims, or motions” defenses d. appellate scope of respect to the I With maneuvers,” avoid- thus “costly meritless approach following review, we find liti- expense in unnecessary delay and ing (1) factual or one: Whether the correct is Conference the Judicial gation. Report exist to reasons (2) faith dilatory or bad and Proce- Practice Rules of on Committee district is Rule 11 sanctions impose (letter 9, 1982) (Mar. dure, app. C for abuse subject to review to decide court Chairman, Mansfield, Adviso- Judge Walter hand, a deci discretion;5 the other on Rules), reprinted on Civil ry Committee legally is pleading or motion sion whether (1983); Adviso- 190, also 192 see F.R.D. 97 law sub question of involves a sufficient are 11 Rule Note. ry Committee by this court. See review novo ject to de “discourage dilatory or abusive designed to Inc., CBS, F.2d v. Westmoreland litigation help to streamline tactics (D.C.Cir.1985). 1174-75 claims lessening frivolous process by a form are viewed Whether Inc., Texaco, 793 F.2d v. Pin defenses.” opposing cost-shifting, compensating Cir.) (5th (quoting or friv- injured by the vexatious parties denied, F.2d Note), reh’g Committee 11, or as by Rule litigation forbidden olous banc). (1986) (en those imposed on punishment a form incorporates 11 as amended rule, of sanc- imposition violate the who v. Hashemi See objective standard. meant to deter 11 is to Rule pursuant tions Publications, Inc., Campaigner Ad- See violating the rule. attorneys from Pin, Cir.1986); F.2d at 1581, 1583 ‘sanc- “The word visory Note. Committee Eavenson, 1455; Auchmuty & Greenwald example, stresses caption, for tions’ (3rd Cir. Holtzman, im- dealing with orientation a deterrent testing conduct 1985). The standard motions, pa- or other pleadings, proper “reasonableness Rule 11 amended under pers.” Id. circumstances,” standard under original good- stringent than the “more imposing permissibility A. fi- *6 Advisory Committee faith formula.” 11 Rule under penalties nancial re Advisory Note The Committee Note.4 dis the gives courts 11 itself using the wisdom to “avoid minds courts specific to fit sanctions to fashion cretion signer’s conduct hindsight” to “test the cases: to be was reasonable by inquiring what motion, or pleading, the time the motion, paper
lieve at or other pleading, If a court, Id. What submitted.” paper rule, other the of this signed violation inquiry initiative, reasonable constitutes a upon its own or upon motion signed person upon the who impose shall as how factors depend on such may both, ap- an it, party, or represented a was avail- investigation much time may include sanction, which propriate he had signer whether able [and] the other pay to an order to toas for information a client rely on ex- of the reasonable the amount parties mo- pleading, underlying facts filing of of the incurred penses because plead- tion, paper; whether or other paper, in- motion, or other pleading, on motion, paper was based or other ing, attorney’s fee. cluding reasonable a law; or whether plausible a view 1584, applied Hashemi, at we 784 F.2d 5. In predi a subjective faith was finding of bad 4. A reviewing the clearly when erroneous standard imposition under of sanctions cate to pre- under Hashemi, court’s determination at district 784 F.2d pre-amendment rule. See plain- Rule 11 540; Eavenson, version 1583; Ves amendment Davis v. F.2d 775 at present The (5th in bad faith. 494, not acted tiffs had 4 497 n. Enterprises, 765 lan under come before us is the first to Corp. City case Cir.1985); v. Eastway Construction Cir.1985). 243, rule. (2d York, amended 762 F.2d 253 New
1557
forcing
deterring
(emphasis added).
Rule 11 and
baseless
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11
fore,
There
expressly per
imposed upon
lawyer,
while Rule 11 neither
suits. When
expressly
imposition
penalty
lawyer
mits nor
forbids the
finkncial
forces the
rather
penalty,
explicitly give
than the client to bear the costs of viola
a financial
it does
authority
impose
"appro
Monetary
courts the
tions of the rule.
priate
way
power
sanction." 6 The discretion vested in be the most effective
to deter a
wealthy party
bringing
the court is reinforced
ful and
friv-
"{t]he
litigation.
legitima
Committee Note which states that
olóus or vexatious
The
necessary flexibility cy
i~nposing monetary
court
...
retains the
sanctions under
appropriately
already
recognized.
to deal
rule. It has discretion to tailor sanctions to
with violations of the Rule 11 has
been
See
CURL,
1007,
In re
Hopkins,
803 F.2d at
Cotner v.
particular
case,
900,
(10th Cir.1986)
facts of the
with which
795 F.2d
903
acquainted." Although
it should be well
(fine
plaintiff's
cannot be total bar to
ac
commonly imposed
the sanctions most
are
courts;
pf
cess to
fine vacated becai~he~
attorneys' fees,
costs and
the selection of
improper procedure);
brod,
Glick v. Gut
type
imposed
the
within the district court's sound exercise of
of sanction to be
lies
754,
(7th Cir.1986); Huge
782 F.2d
757 n. 3
Peoples Bank,
(7th
ford v.
long they are and the fiscal and administra- system cial prócess. with due re- procedural that additional tive burdens protections comporting B. Procedural Providing due would entail.8 quirements process due 11 will not be will ensure that Rule process applica- arbitrarily, that erroneous applied facing possi Attorneys and clients minimized, will tion of the rule 11 have interests discipline under Rule ble vigorous arguments and ad- legal creative the Due protection under qualifying stifled. vocacy will not be Amendment. the Fifth Process Clause of requires notice and process due Procedural any gov contempt procedures heard before 1. Criminal opportunity to be
an
inter
property
required
of a
deprivation
ernmental
Connecticut, 401 U.S.
371,
v.
est. Boddie
Nothing in
of Rule
the text
11
780, 786,
379,
28 L.Ed.2d
91 S.Ct.
Note
Committee
indicates
(1971). Determining
process is due
what
follow
process requires a court to
that due
requires
applica
an
simply
11 case
a Rule
called for
procedures
Fed.R.Crim.P.
process:
principles of
tion of familiar
due
42(b)
contempt proceedings be
for criminal
of the notice and
timing and content
impose monetary
it
a
sanction
fore
can
hearing
depend upon
will
of
nature
Both the note and
pursuant
Rule 11.
circumstances and
of all the
an evaluation
to the
policy
opposite
considerations tend
of the com
appropriate accommodation
an
man
Although Rule
itself
conclusion.
v. Lo
involved. See
Goss
peting
interests
procedures to be
specific
no
followed
dates
729, 738,
565, 578-79, 95
pez,
U.S.
S.Ct.
evaluating
viola
claims of
when
(1975).
of
very
“The
nature
1559
pendent
public
from tine
at large.
jor goals
We
of Rule 11 are
rid
to
the courts of
frequently
attorneys
refer to
as officers
litigation
meritless
and
grow-
to reduce the
of the court. A monetary sanction
ing
cost and burdensomeness of
litiga-
civil
failure
carry
to
special
out this
responsi-
tion.
It would
counterproductive
be
if the
bility as an attorney differs from the
rule itself were to
cause
increase in
more severe infractions of criminal con- unnecessary litigation by mandating exten-
tempt for
attorneys
which
and members
sive
procedures
collateral
prerequisites
as
general public
of the
can become liable.
imposition
to the
of sanctions. The amend-
The former
unjustified
is an
failure to ments to Rule 11 were intended to encour-
carry out an administrative responsibility
age judges to use the rule and to eliminate
court;
as an officer of the
the latter is an
their reluctance to
lawyers
sanction
who
affront
to the authority of
judge.
litigation
abuse the
process. Committee Note.
Miranda v.
The fear of
Co.,
Southern
Transp.
spawning
Pacific
litigation
satellite
710 F.2d
Cir.1983).
one
cause of the
“The
reluctance of
power
judges
impose
court’s
to
to
impose appropriate sanc-
sanctions
pre-amendment
under the
tions on attorneys
judges
rule.
If
practicing before it
are required to
‘springs
engage
in
a different source
unnecessarily
than does
hearings,
extensive
power
and
punish
to
in effect
conduct a
criminal con-
”
second trial on
tempt.’ Kleiner,
every issue of
(cita-
at 1209
and
create
omitted).
possibility
jury
tions
of
any
trial for
U.S.C.
401 limits a
§
monetary
small,
sanction
court’s
contempt power
they
criminal
however
will
to three
often refrain from imposing
instances that are far
narrower than the
and
vitality
subject
actions
amended Rule 11 will
to sanction
be
under Rule 11.
away.
drained
It is not necessary
Under
401 a
follow
court
§
United States
procedures
required
may punish
in
criminal con-
contempt
“such
of its au-
tempt proceedings
thority,
every
in
other,
(1)
and
case to
none
insure
Misbehav-
as—
imposition
that the
any person
monetary
ior of
of a
presence
in its
sanction
or so near
justified;
is
less
thereto as to obstruct the
extensive
will
administration of
(2)
generally protect
justice;
the individual
any
Misbehavior of
interests
its offi-
transactions;
cers
their
involved without
(3)
undermining
official
ll.10
Disobedience or resistance to its lawful
process
2. What
due:
is
notice
writ, process, order, rule, decree, or com-
and hearing
mand.”
“An
Supreme
elementary
pointed
Court has
fundamental
out that
requirement
process
of due
evaluating
any proceed
when
process
what
is
there
due
ing
point
comes a
which is to be
finality
when the benefit of
accorded
is notice
an addi-
safeguard
reasonably calculated,
tional
individual
under all the circum
affected
government action,
stances,
apprise
parties
society
and to
interested
pendency
terms of
assurance
the action
increased
that the ac-
and afford them an
just,
tion is
may
outweighed
present
be
objections.”
cost.
their
Mathews,
at
Co.,
U.S.
tion of Rule
sanctions and of the rea-
An
should be
imposition.
given early
sons for their
The existence of
notice that his or her conduct
may
form
11
Early
Rule
itself constitutes a
of notice
warrant Rule
sanctions.
no
violations,
imposes
duty
continuing
thereby
since the rule
an affirmative
tice can deter
attorney
saving monetary
judicial
on
to conduct a reasonable
and
resources.
an
pleading
inquiry
viability
Yagman,
into the
of a
be- Matter
Brown and Fleischer
Baden,
(9th Cir.),
signed;
attorney
fore it is
an
could not
denied,
(1986).
reh’g
assert
that he or she had no notice or
J561
To assure that the efficiencies achieved
As mentioned by the Advisory
through
operation
Committee,
more effective
type
of the
the
severity
and
of the
pleading regimen
sanction are necessary
will not be
offset
elements in the cal
culus.
the
The more
litigation
cost of
possible
satellite
serious the
over the
sanc
tion both in absolute
imposition
sanctions,
size and in
of
the
relation
court must to
to
expenditures,
actual
the
more
possible
extent
scope
limit the
of the
will be due.
proceedings
sanction
to the record.
Thus, discovery should
only
be conducted
Some cautions are in order. Rule
court,
leave of
and then
only
ex-
change
does not
plead
liberal notice
traordinary circumstances.
ing regime of the federal courts or the
requirement
of Fed.R.Civ.P. which de
Advisory Committee Note. Whether and
only
mands
plain
“short and
statement of
to what extent additional
hearing
re-
the claim.” The rule does not require that
quired
vary
will
depending upon the nature
pleadings allege all material facts or the
of the case.
Advisory
The
Committee Note
exact
legal
articulation of the
upon
theories
indicates some of the matters to be con-
which the case will be based. The reason
(1)
sidered:
general;
circumstances in
able inquiry standard of Rule 11 does not
(2)
type
severity
and
of the sanction
preclude plaintiffs
establishing
consideration;
(3)
under
judge’s
and
merits of claims through discovery. Nor is
participation in
proceedings,
judge’s
Rule 11 intended to chill innovative theories
knowledge
facts,
and
there
whether
vigorous
and
advocacy that bring about
is need for
inquiry.
further
The
positive
vital and
changes in the law. The
Committee Note
many
observes that “[i]n
rule should not be used to deter potentially
the judge’s
situations
participation in the
or unpopular
controversial
suits.
It does
proceedings provides him with full knowl- not mean the end of
development,
doctrinal
edge of the relevant facts and little further
legal arguments,
novel
or cases of first
inquiry will
necessary.”
impression. The Advisory Committee Note
When an attorney
specifies
present
has failed
to
rule “is not intended to
chill
necessary
attorney’s
an
support
factual
for
enthusiasm or creativity
claims de-
in pursuing
spite
factual or
opportunities
so,
legal
several
theories.” Nor
to do
for
does
11 impinge upon
example,
right
further hearing on
of
the sanctions
indigent criminal defendants
appoint
to
only
issue
well be
unnecessary
not
but
,
ment of
see Gideon v. Wain
a waste
judicial
also
resources.
counsel
On the
wright, 372
U.S.
83 S.Ct.
hand,
other
when a court is
to re-
asked
(1963),
L.Ed.2d 733
obligation
counsel’s
an
credibility
solve
issue of
or to determine
represent
the client to the best of his or
good
argument
whether a
faith
can be
her abilities.
legal
taken,
made for
position
the risk
imposition
erroneous
un-
REVERSED.
der limited
probable
and the
HILL,
Judge,
Circuit
specially concur-
hearing
value
likely
additional
are
to be
ring:
greater.
opportunities
Prior
respond
charges
Rule 11
will also
influence
I
judgment
concur in the
reversing the
hearing
extent
which further
judgment
is neces-
court,
of the district
but not for
sary.
given.
reasons
Supreme
request
judgment.
Court has said that
frequently may
The court
"[a]
be able to
attorney’s
fees
should
result in second
evaluate
Rule 11
issue
course of
major litigation.”
Eckerhart,
Hensley v.
461 U.S.
examining
ruling
legal
on the factual and
424, 437,
1933, 1941,
103 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
merits
a motion to
summary
dismiss
(1983).
principle applies
This same
attor-
when
judgment
any
proceedings.
without
further
But
neys’
imposed
fees and
sanctions are
other
un-
potential target
must
have no-
der Rule 11.
contemplated
tice that sanctions are
and of
is,
alleged deficiency
what
13. Assertions of
his or her
Rule 11 violations
and have
are often
made
12(b)(6)
explain.
connection
a Rule
motion
reasonable
to contest and
summary
dismiss or a Rule 56 motion for
sanctions,
simply filing
copy
a case that the
This case is almost
carbon
(11th opinion Dykes
authorized.
Hosemann,
ing and the later, month approximately one the matter comment on the court did entering that or- Finally, after sanctions. coun- allow der, plaintiffs did not the court respond. Such sum- opportunity any sel principles contravene mary procedures espouses. majority process the separate require 11 does not That every case before hearing in evidentiary my not alter imposed does can be court’s actions. the district assessment majority cites for the cases In all of evidentiary separate proposition par unnecessary, the sanctioned hearing is and ex contest ty had an *13 v. In fact Oliveri plain his actions. Cir.1986), (2d 1265, 1280 Thompson, County nom. sub denied rt. ce — U.S. —, Graseck, 107 S.Ct. v. Suffolk (1987),the court stat 94 L.Ed.2d mandate 11 does not that, although Rule ed evidentiary hearing, “notice separate required.” heard opportunity Thus, although an effective always neces does explain contest and evidentiary full-blown separate, sitate some reasonable must be hearing, there imposition of challenge the opportunity to 11 sanctions. comments, I concur clarifying With these opinion of the court. FALLADA, Petitioner-Appellant, Juan DUGGER, Secretary, Depart- L. Richard Corrections, State ment of Florida, Respondent-Appellant. 86-5185.
No. Appeals, States Court United Circuit. Eleventh 24, 1987. June