Long v. ThommessenLong v. Thommessen
Case Information
Before S MITH , W IENER , and O WEN , *2 without first serving it on Thommessen.
Circuit Judges. Thommessen suggested that she withdraw the motion, but she refused, so Thommessen filed
P ER C URIAM : [*] a cross-motion for sanctions against Long.
Patricia Long appeals the district court’s af- The bankruptcy court denied Long’s mo- firmance of the bankruptcy court’s imposition tion and granted Thommessen’s, imposing a of sanctions. We affirm. $14,000 sanction on Long. In support of its
denial of Long’s motion, the court reasoned
I.
that (1) Thommessen’s statement that Long
This matter stems from an ancillary bank-
was under investigation was accurate, because
ruptcy case in which Bjorn Thommessen, the
the trustees of the Norwegian bankruptcy es-
trustee of a Norwegian bankruptcy proceed-
tate were investigating Long; and (2) Long
ing, sought permission to conduct discovery in
had reason to know of this investigation be-
the United States related to that proceeding.
cause of a press release from OKOKRIM, a
In his motion to authorize discovery pursuant
Norwegian unit that investigates and prose-
to
Justifying its impositions of sanctions, the Tjontveit [the debtor in the Norwegian court found that Long had engaged in a pat- bankruptcy proceeding] and a business as- tern of abusive litigation in addition to the mo- sociate, E. Patricia Long (“Long”), are un- tion for sanctions against Thommessen: She der criminal investigation in Norway for al-
leged tax fraud relating to Tjontveit’s and/or Long’s receipt of value added tax rebates in the approximate sum of $12 mil- Rule 9011(c)(1)(A) states, in relevant part: lion (U.S.) which were received from the A motion for sanctions under this rule shall Norwegian Directorate of Taxes. be made separately from other motions or re- quests and shall describe the specific conduct Long, proceeding pro se , moved for sanc- alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be tions against Thommessen, contending that she served as provided in Rule 7004. The motion for sanctions may not be filed with or presented was not under criminal investigation and that to the court unless, within 21 days after service Thommessen’s unsupported statement dam- of the motion (or such other period as the court aged her personal integrity and business repu- may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, de- tation. Long failed, however, to abide by the fense, contention, allegation, or denial is not safe harbor provision in Federal Rule of Bank- withdrawn or appropriately corrected, except ruptcy Procedure 9011 she filed the motion that this limitation shall not apply if the conduct
alleged is the filing of a petition in violation of subdivision (b). If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the [*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has de- reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees in- termined that this opinion should not be published curred in presenting or opposing the motion. and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. . P. 9001(c)(1)(A).
filed grievances with the state bar, two law- in its assessment of the evidence. It found that suits in courts that likely lacked subject matter Long had engaged in “a pattern of activity,” jurisdiction, and a separate suit against another suing Thommessen repeatedly and frivolously, [3] Norwegian trustee SS all of which contain sim- and that Long had refused the opportunity to ilarly groundless allegations as did her motion correct her conduct.
for sanctions against Thommessen. The bank-
ruptcy court outlined the negative effects of The judgment of the district court, affirm- Long’s conduct and concluded sanctions were ing the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED. required. In a careful and thorough opinion
the district court affirmed.
II.
We review rule 9011 sanctions for abuse of
discretion. Krim v. First City Bancorporation
Inc. (In re First City Bancorporation Inc. ),
am). “A court abuses its discretion when its
ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law
or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence.” Id.
The bankruptcy court correctly viewed the
law. The court analyzed Long’s motion for
sanctions under the appropriate rule SS rule
9011 and imposed the sanctions pursuant to
9011(b)(1) for filing for an improper purpose.
The court committed no legal error in applying
this provision to Long’s motion.
Further, the court was not clearly erroneous
Notes
[2] Rule 9011(b)(1) states that by filing a motion a party is certifying that the motion “is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless
[3] Long appeared
pro se
in the bankruptcy court
increase in the cost of litigation.” F .
P. 9001(b)(1). The district court stated that the
but retained counsel for the appeals. The district
bankruptcy court had imposed sanctions based on
court rightly states that “sanctions may be appro-
rule 9001(b)(1) and (3). We read the bankruptcy
priate when
pro se
litigants are shown to have a
court’s order to impose sanctions relying only on
history of submitting frivolous claims . . . .
Men-
subpart (b)(1), but it provides an independently
doza v. Lynaugh
,