Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Procedure — sanctions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 7, 2012//

Civil Procedure — sanctions

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 7, 2012//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — sanctions

Where a party moved for sanctions in its appellate brief, rather than filing a separate motion, the motion is denied.

“Northrop contends that the appeal is frivolous—which it is—and asks for sanctions. The request is in Northrop’s appellate brief. But Fed. R. App. P. 38 provides that a litigant seeking sanctions must request them in a “separately filed motion”. And this court is not inclined to award sanctions in favor of a party that cannot be bothered to follow the rules itself. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, which represents Northrop, should be able to tell the difference between residence and domicile, and should not have any difficulty complying with Rule 38.”

“Two weeks after oral argument, on the same day it filed its amended notice of removal, Northrop filed a separate motion for sanctions. This comes too late. If we were seriously considering sanctions, we could have initiated the process ourselves promptly after oral argument (if not before). There is little point to requesting sanctions twice, once in a brief and again by motion, and the duplication can cause both confusion and extra work for everyone. Rule 38 permits a court of appeals to award sanctions, after giving notice and an opportunity to respond, whether or not a litigant files a separate motion. Our Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals 45 (2003 ed.) tells counsel that the court may elect to issue such a notice if a brief requests sanctions. See also Greviskies v. Universities Research Association, Inc., 417 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. 2005); In re Bero, 110 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1997). Unless the court gives notice, however, an adverse litigant is free to ignore a request made in a brief. Likewise an adverse litigant can safely ignore a post-argument motion for sanctions, unless the court calls for a response.”

Motion denied.

10-3408 Heinen v. Northrop Grunman Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conlon, J., Easterbrook, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests