*1 ENTERTAINMENT v. MARVEL LeFLORE & PAVELIC CADENCE OF A DIVISION GROUP, CORP., INDUSTRIES аl. et 5, 1989 December 2, 1989 Decided October Argued 88-791. No. Rehnquist, Court, which opinion of J., Scalia, delivered O’Connor, and Stevens, Blackmun, White, Brennan, J., and C. post, dissenting opinion, J., Marshall, filed JJ., Kennedy, joined. p. 127. him petitioner. With argued for cause
Jacob Laufer M. Karish. Patricia was the briefs respondents and for argued the cause B. Norman Arnoff McKay and B. Robert respondent Shukat. for a brief filed Entertain- respondents Marvel a brief filed Slotnik V. Sol Group al. et ment opinion Court. delivered
Justice Scalia *2 part: provides “If Procedure Rule of Civil Federal signed of this pleading, in violation motion, or other upon . . shall rule, the court. must appropriate we . . .” In this case sanction .
it... impose a a court to whether Rule authorizes determine signed, only against sanction attorney’s against firm. that law but alsо
I controversy giving was insti- rise to the current The action Calloway against respondents by plaintiff J. tuted Northern script picture infringement copyright his motion willful for original complaint—signed The related claims. and other LeFlore—alleged Ray Calloway’s attorney, L. filed picture developed Calloway for a motion an idea that had develop respondents begun script, to that had written Respondents permission. a mo- filed his without this work pointing to annexed to a series of documents dismiss, tion to right develop gave the work complaint to them complaint commercially. dismissed the District Court (with refile), ground that the documents not on the leave to Calloway’s infringement, alleged but because authorized the specify registration complaint of his number to had failеd alleged in- copyright acts of which the and the dates fringement had occurred. again signed by complaint, LeFlore, was filed
An amended remedying the defects In to later. addition several weeks newly asserted that dismissal, the basis of that were grant purporting Calloway’s signatures the documents on by respondents, forged option included that had been sought. damages among Plaintiff were fоr which the actions respondents’ opposing forgery motions claim this relied on summary judgment. dismiss and motions with Radovan Pavelic In LeFlore joined October Thereafter, of Pavelic & LeFlore. form the law partnership in the case signed: all court were papers
“Pavelic & LeFlore LeFlore /s/ L. By Ray Firm) (A Member for Plaintiff.” Attorneys including interrogatory responses Several of these papers, the alle- order, rely upon and a continued to proposed pretrial found insuffi- trial, At the District Court gation forgery. a ver- contention, cient evidence to and directed support on that returned respondents in favor of issue. The jury dict all plaintiff a verdict claims. against remaining *3 motion and after a the District Upon respondents’ hearing, 11 in the $100,000 a Rule sanction amount of imposed Court the that the ground forgery Pavelic & LeFlore on against no in fact and had not been suffi- investigated claim had basis counsel. Radovan Pavelic moved to relieve the ciently by (1) firm did not exist sanction, firm of the the contending and therefore was not during major portion litigation (2) 11 violations, 11 Rule for the Rule fully responsible the attor- a sanction only upon court to empowers law firm. upon attorney’s who ney signed paper, contention, first and there- The District Court accepted half the sanction from the fore amended its order to shift of firm how- contention, to LeFlore. It second rejected that Rule 11 sanctions be “on ever, concluding imposed both the and the law on whose behalf attorney individual Calloway v. Marvel Entertainment he signed papеrs.” Corp., Group, Div. Industries Cadence 684, 650 F. Supp. 1986). (SDNY 687 affirmed,
The
for the Second Circuit
854
Appeals
Court
in
(1988),
1479
thus
itself
placing
square disagree-
F. 2d
an earlier
of the Fifth Circuit that Rule
holding
ment with
no
other than the indi-
attorney
authorizes sanctions against
Robin-
court
see
lawyer
lawyers
sign
papers,
vidual
Register
1119, 1128-1130
808F. 2d
Co.,
son National Cash
v.
(1989).
(1987).
granted certiorari,
. . . an sanction.” ambiguous point phrase “person signed” is as to the be- today. when it is reаd so, however, fore us That is not provisions dealing total context of of Rule all (all provisions except filings. Those sentences) are as follows: two paper party
“Every pleading, and other of a motion, attorney signed by represented an shall at least be attorney attorney’s name, of record one party rep- A who is not shall be stated. whose address attorney sign party’s pleading, by shall resented party’s state the address motion, or other party signature constitutes a .... The *4 signer signer by the that the has read the certificate paper; pleading, motion, or other that to the best of the knowledge, signer’s information, and belief formed after grounded inquiry in it is well fact and is war- reasonable good argument by existing law or a faith for the ranted existing modification, law, or reversal of extension, interposed any improper purpose, that it such is not unnecessary delay to cause or needless as to harass or litigation. pleading, in If a motion, increase the cost of signed, paper is not it shall be stricken unless it or other promptly signed after the omission is called to the at- is pleading, motion, If a pleader or mоvant. the of tention the rule, of this signed in violation paper is other or im- shall upon initiative, own upon or its motion court, party, represented signed person ait, pose upon who the an include appropriate sanction, which an both, or parties party amount of the pay the other to to order filing the of expenses of because incurred the reasonаble including a paper, reason- pleading, or other motion, the attorney’s fee.” able person it” phrase “the the other contexts
In meaning legal the natu- of technical might the somewhat bear the behalf person or on whose name juridical in whose ral or beginning re- paragraph with a signed; in a but paper was proceeding to signature, then quirement individual of signaturе, consequences we think import discuss reasonably portions signer must the later to references signer at the mentioned thought the individual connote be to “person phrase strange to think that as It is outset. signed” repre- partnership to refers last sentence in the attorney, think that be to by as it would sented pleading” refers signer phrase has read “the earlier by signer necessarily but reading the individual not “[i]f phrase partnership; the earlier or that in the someone indi- signed” not to absence pleading refers is ... signature behalf signature absence but vidual signature im- is requirement of partnership. Just as import posed the recited think individual, we signature him. consequences run as to square particularly hard interpretation Respondents’ “the they not assert do the text since with Rulе, under signed,” be sanctioned “shall” and who (that unacceptable), obviously be only partnership would attor- partnership or the either rather is but ney, leaving option option. But at the court’s both, extreme care quite with the unexpressed inconsistent seems very clear sentence, makes same Rule, which the *5 mandatory person that the sanction must extend to “the paper], represented [the party, or both.” It is surely why puzzling precise the text so would be about that speculation only attorney but leave to whether the individual puzzlement firmhis or both can be sanctioned. The does signed” only exist, not if course, “the means attorney. the individual
Respondents appeal “long firmly legal established principles partnership agency,” Respondents Brief for Grоup Marvel Entertainment et al. under which all the partnership members of a are liable for the authorized acts of (Second) partner employee, Agency see Restatement (1958). § dealing We are not here, however, with liability, strikingly departs common-law but with a Rule that assumptions delega- from normal common-law such as that of bility. signing attorney cannot leave it to some trusted partners, satisfy subordinate, or to one of his himself that factually legally responsible; by signing the filed represents merely he the fact that it is so, but also the personally applied judgment. fact that he has his own Where duty delegated, the text establishes a that cannot be one reasonably expect punishment only party it to authorize ofthe duty placed. whom the We think that to be the fаir import language here.
Respondents rely upon also the fact that after formation of partnership signature explicitly LeFlore’s was on behalf simple response signature the firm. The is that on behalf signature comply of the firm was not a that could with the signature first sentence of the Rule, and not a which portions consequences. says later of the Rule attach Rule pаpers signed “by must be at least one of rec- added.) attorney’s (Emphasis ord in the individual name.” signature Even if LePlore’s the fashion had the indicated making partners (including effect of and all its him- self) attorneys only signature record, it is his in his indi- vidual name that satisfies the first sentence of the Rule,
126 capacity, the to which signature, in that individual it is that thought long been It has refer. portions the Rule of later attornеy complying Rule 11 practice the for the better sign name and in his individual sign firm, but his not for See firm beneath. of his name behalf, with his own Procedure, and State Rules Federal Gavit, The New (Under practice (1939) 11, “the Rule A. J. A. 25 B. partnership” is of a name in the pleadings to be for “improper”). and “undesirable” rely Appeals, opinion of the Court of Respondents, underlying policies Rule upon that the heаvily the contention holding for by firm accountable a law be served 11 will best Appeals’ words, attorney’s In the Court of violation. its will create responsibility sanctions firm] for Rule “[law greater monitoring, moni- internal strong for incentives inquiries pre-filing fewer improved toring result will en- if it were Even at 1480. 2d, 854 F. claims.” baseless liability part more would on the tirely certain that purposes Rule, we would effectively achieve expense objective of a textual pursue at that free to feel task Our described. have interpretation as we unnatural as upon improve it. not to apply text, tois respondents’ clear any at it is not all event But in purposes interpretation achieve would better strained guarantee reimburse- sure, to be better would, It the Rule. expenses the Rule party caused for innocent ment of the normally have more partnership will violation, since purpose attorney. The funds than but not reimbursement however, is provision question, bring purpose 11 as whole is Rule and the “sanction”; nondelegable personal, signer his the individual home to purposes arguable are that these responsibility. at It is least just that, clear as by provision makes which served better personally name- signer not some expects the the court —and the truth validate firm—to his law within less papers it will visit so also filed, legal reasonableness upon personally him firm—its not his law retribution —and failing responsibility. message thereby for in that con- attorney, veyed “team effort” but in to the this is not a analysis point yours precisely alone, last psychological Moreover, aside, 11. effect there will be greater signing attorney, economicdeterrence its will know certain that the district court will *7 entirely upon part part- to a him, sanction and not divert of it (if associate) nership may only not be a of which he he is an member) (if may is a choose to seek member, or which he not recompense partnership’s from him. To be knowl- sure, edge subjеct might it in- that it was to sanction induce monitoring,” reasonably crease “internal but one can believe by directly increasing that more will be achieved the incen- signer is at tive for the take care. Such a belief compel least not so unthinkable as to the conclusion that the naturally say. Rule does not mean what it most seems to foregoing judgment reasons, For the Cir- Second сuit is reversed insofar as it allows Rule sanctions to be imposed against Pavelic is remanded & LeFlore. The case proceedings opinion. for further consistent this
It so ordered. is Marshall, Justice dissenting. consistently judge pri- held that a trial bears
We have mary responsibility managing the cases before him. One purposes strengthen the fundamental is to police litiga- judge trial in his efforts to abusive hand of the flexibility practices provide him tion and to sufficient to craft interpreta- penalties appropriate to each case. The Court’s overly contrast, restrictive, in is as it reads 11, tion of Rule immunity any for law firms from into the Rule an absolute sanction for their misconduct. phrase
Although recognizes that relevant the Court signed” person pleading, motion, Rule —“the whо juridical person on whose be- at issue—could mean signed, ante, it finds half is at nonetheless the document meaning phrase in the context of has a more limited acquiesce in As I cannot such an unnec- the Rule as a whole. judges, essary trial I the discretion of federal erosion of dissent. “plain meaning” reading Rule 11 is
The Court’s entirely perceives between the lan- based on the сonnection beginning guage to an indi- Rule, at the which refers language ‘“signer,”’ the crucial the last sen- vidual a court to sanctions “‘the tence, which allows pleading paper. person signed’” Ante, at 123-124. reading Although the Rule does not foreclose the the text of by compelling, interpretation no finds Court certainly required only means the reasonable one—and separate meaning.” Significantly, “plain in three person signing places a document as the Rule identifies entirely phrase, “signer.” different “the Yet it uses pleading, listing parties signed” in its thereby drawing explicit violations, be sanctioned for phrases. in- two If the drafters had distinction between the *8 entity under the tended to limit the that could be sanctioned repeated signer, they easily have Rule to the individual could “signеr” a fourth time. The use different word phrases may reasonably viewed as an indication of two dif- be meanings. “signer,” In the drafters unam- ferent the case of actually biguously sought refer to the individual who signed subsequent phrase their use document; person may signaled signed,” “the the drafters have any juridi- their sanctions on intent to allow a court to person, signer. including cal firm the law of the individual In Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil context of by legal drafted familiar with traditional con- a committee cepts, reasonably “person” in- assume that the word one can persons, encompassing part- just dicates natural more than nerships corporations g., professional e. See, as well. §551(2) (Administrative 5 U. Act defines S. C. Procedure “person” partnership, corporatiоn, “individual, as an associa- public private organization agency”); tion, or an other than 1988) § Partnership (McKinney (defining “per- N. Y. Law partnerships, corporations, son” “individuals, to include associations”). interpretation other At the an least, gives “person” legal meaning plausible 11 that its is no less majority’s reading than the more restrictive of the Rule. purposes support of the Rule this construction of Rule pleadings, papers All motions, 11. must be attorney requirement in his individual name. serves in This part goal identifying the administrative court one for the person questions papers. can answer about Be- proceedings litigation, cause Rule often occur at the end Advisory see 11, Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule Proc. Civ. (1982 V), App., p. Supp. ed., 28 U. S. C. often be will documents, cruciаl that the relevant which have been years identify specific earlier, filed months or even indi- knowledge of vidual with their contents. No such adminis- suggest phrase person trative concerns that the “the signed” paper should be restricted to an individual. majority emphasizes, ante, as the
Furthermore, at requirement signer promotes of an individual a measure of in- accountability by ensuring dividual thаt someone takes direct responsibility filing. encouraging for each Yet individual accountability accountability mutually firm are not exclu- goals. accountability may height- Indeed, sive be ened when understands that his carelessness or may subject maliciousness both himself and his to lia- bility. responsibility The concern that a take direct by holding for each is not disserved law firm re- sponsible cases where district court determines that *9 blameworthy. internally both In short, are it is not incon- inevitably “puzzling” ante, sistent, results, nor does lead to judge impose at 125, to allow a trial the discretion to sanc- juridical person, tions on a law firm, for which a at- torney agent. acts as that indicate decisively Rule underlying
The policies ef- can a court so that broadly interpreted be should “person” sanc- appropriate formulating in discretion exercise fectively text, Rule’s the from infers majority the as Although, tions. the individ- to home” bring “to bemay Rule purpose one its with complying for responsibility personal his signer ual to deter designed explicitly is the Rule ante, at 126, dictates, Com- Advisory papers. and motions, pleadings, improper App., S. C. 28 U. Proc. Civ. Fed. Rule on *10 apportioned The District Court the sanction here between and his law on its assess- firm, based Calloway culpability v. Marvel ment the relative of each. Corp., Croup, Div. Industries Entertainment Cadence (SDNY 1986). Supp. firmly F. I that this sort of believe penalty precisely contemplates. I what Rule 11 therefore join reading cannot the Court’s of the Rule which creates immunity coverage. for law firms from its Notes mittee’s in cap- the ‘sanctions’ V) (“The word ed., (1982 Supp. p. im- with dealing in orientation a deterrent . . stresses . tion cases, sanctions some Admittedly, pleadings”). proper abusive halt signer on solely imposed however, deter- cases, In other effectively. most practices on sanctions imposing be served best might rence moni- internal encourage to attempt in an law signer’s assess to position in the best is judge trial toring. accordingly. to act and situation each dynamics par- each sanction to tailor need Recognizing in a emphasized Advisory Committee situation, ticular vio- with dealing “flexibility” for need context related ibid, “shall the words the effect (discussing See lations. sanctions). discretion court’s trial impose” whether decides a judge when important no less Flexibility be should him bеfore entities many all of some, one, motions, papers. pleadings, for improper responsible held it is rigidity, demand does Rule itself as.here, Where, to a available options constrict Court to unwise The judge 11. a violation faced with trial judge familiar intimately behavior improper observes pen- fashion the be allowed should case of a facts de- Today’s future abuse. effectively deters most alty deal must judges of trial the hands ties unwisely cision ill 11 violations Rule immediately with frequently effi- justly Rule administering goal serves 1. Proc. Civ. Rule Fed. See ciently.