Christian v. Mattel, Inc.
286 F.3d 1118 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 authorizes sanctions only for misconduct related to signed written pleadings, motions, and other papers filed with the court. It does not provide a basis for sanctioning other litigation misconduct, such as discovery abuses, misrepresentations made in oral argument, or boorish behavior in meetings.
Facts:
- In 1990, Claudene Christian created a collegiate cheerleader doll, later referred to as the 'Claudene' doll.
- Mattel, Inc. manufactures the Barbie doll and holds copyrights for various head sculptures, including the 'SuperStar' sculpture (created in 1976) and the 'Neptune's Daughter' sculpture (created in 1991).
- Following a settled lawsuit between Mattel and Claudene Christian's company, her father, Harry Christian, retained attorney James Hicks.
- Hicks, on behalf of Harry Christian, sued Mattel for copyright infringement, alleging that Mattel's 'Cool Blue' Barbie (using the 1991 head sculpture) and 'Virginia Tech' Barbie (using the 1976 head sculpture) infringed on the copyright for the Claudene doll, which was created in 1996.
- The Mattel dolls at issue contained clearly visible copyright notices on the back of their heads, stating creation dates that predated the Claudene doll.
- During a meeting of counsel, Mattel's lawyers presented Hicks with the dolls to demonstrate their prior creation dates.
- Hicks refused to inspect the dolls and threw them from the conference table in disgust.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry Christian sued Mattel, Inc. in U.S. District Court for copyright infringement.
- Mattel moved for summary judgment, arguing its products predated Christian's doll.
- Mattel also served a motion for Rule 11 sanctions on Christian's attorney, James Hicks, for filing a frivolous complaint.
- After Hicks failed to withdraw the complaint within the 21-day safe harbor period, Mattel filed its Rule 11 motion with the court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Mattel.
- The district court also granted the Rule 11 motion, finding the complaint was factually baseless and that Hicks had engaged in other misconduct.
- Following supplemental briefing, the district court ordered Hicks to pay Mattel $501,565 in attorneys' fees as a sanction.
- Hicks (appellant) appealed the sanctions order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions based, in part, on an attorney's conduct that occurred outside of signed written pleadings, such as behavior during depositions, meetings of counsel, and oral arguments?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeown, J.
Yes. A district court abuses its discretion when it grounds Rule 11 sanctions in conduct that falls outside the rule's textual scope. Although the district court correctly determined that the underlying copyright complaint was factually and legally frivolous due to the prior creation doctrine, its orders impermissibly blended this finding with sanctions for Hicks' extra-pleadings misconduct. The court cited Hicks' 'boorish' behavior at a meeting of counsel, his interruption of a deposition, and misstatements during oral argument as bases for the sanction. Rule 11 is strictly limited to representations made in a signed 'pleading, written motion, or other paper.' Because the appellate court cannot determine whether the sanctions were improperly based on this non-Rule 11 conduct, the sanctions order must be vacated and the case remanded for the district court to delineate the specific legal basis for any sanctions it re-imposes.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict textual boundaries of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, clarifying that it is not a catch-all remedy for all attorney misconduct. The court's holding requires trial judges to be precise in identifying the source of their sanctioning power, distinguishing between Rule 11 (for written filings), 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (for vexatiously multiplying proceedings), and the court's inherent authority (for bad-faith conduct). This prevents courts from improperly lumping all of a lawyer's bad behavior together under a Rule 11 analysis and ensures that any sanction imposed is properly tethered to the specific conduct prohibited by the rule or power being invoked.
Unlock the full brief for Christian v. Mattel, Inc.