Galawezh Showan v. Patrick Pressdee
922 F.3d 1211 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that provides a substantive, compensatory remedy for a party forced to litigate against frivolous claims or defenses does not conflict with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Therefore, under the Erie doctrine, such a statute must be applied by a federal court sitting in diversity.
Facts:
- Patrick Pressdee, an employee of Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, was driving a company vehicle in the course of his employment.
- On April 27, 2015, while traveling at 35-40 mph, Pressdee rear-ended Galawezh Showan's vehicle, which was stopped at a red light.
- The impact caused Showan's car to collide with the vehicle in front of it.
- Showan sustained serious injuries, including a whiplash-type injury to her cervical spine, wrist swelling, facial bruising, and an exacerbation of a pre-existing back condition.
- Within days of the accident, a Krispy Kreme corrective action report acknowledged Pressdee was at fault, and an insurance claim summary noted Showan was "0%" negligent.
- As a result of her injuries, Showan, a cashier at Walmart, required physical accommodations at work, such as using a stool more frequently, which limited her to working only in the express checkout lanes.
Procedural Posture:
- Galawezh Showan filed a personal injury action against Patrick Pressdee and Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation in the State Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.
- Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendants initially asserted affirmative defenses, including that Showan was comparatively negligent, but moved to amend their answers to admit liability eighteen months later, shortly before trial.
- The district court granted Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on Showan's claim for future lost wages.
- The district court denied Showan's request for a post-verdict hearing under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(e), ruling as a matter of law that Defendants' initial defenses were not frivolous.
- The jury returned a verdict for Showan in the amount of $330,000.
- Showan, as the prevailing party, appealed several of the district court's rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 conflict with and therefore preempt a Georgia statute that requires a jury to determine whether a party asserted frivolous defenses and to award damages, including attorney's fees, in a federal diversity case?
Opinions:
Majority - Branch, J.
No. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 does not conflict with Georgia statute O.C.G.A. § 9-11-68(e) because the two provisions address different subjects and serve different purposes; therefore, the substantive state statute must be applied in federal diversity cases. The court reasoned that Rule 11 is primarily a punitive, deterrent tool focused on sanctioning attorneys for improper filings, with any monetary award being incidental to the goal of deterring future misconduct. In contrast, the Georgia statute creates a substantive, compensatory right for a prevailing party to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of an opposing party's frivolous litigation conduct. Because Rule 11 does not answer the question of compensation for such an injury, there is no direct conflict. Under an Erie analysis, failing to apply the state statute would create inequitable outcomes and encourage forum shopping, as defendants could remove cases to federal court solely to divest plaintiffs of their state-law right to have a jury award damages for frivolous defenses. The Georgia statute's use of the word "shall" makes a post-verdict hearing on frivolity mandatory upon a prevailing party's motion, and the district court's refusal to hold one was an error affecting substantial rights, requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between procedural rules and substantive rights in the context of the Erie doctrine. It establishes that a state law creating a compensatory remedy for litigation misconduct, such as awarding attorney's fees as damages, is substantive and does not necessarily conflict with the federal procedural rule (Rule 11) governing sanctions. The court's focus on the distinct purposes of the provisions—compensation versus deterrence—provides a clear analytical framework for future cases involving potential conflicts between state and federal rules. This holding protects state-created rights from being extinguished upon removal to federal court, thereby discouraging forum shopping by defendants seeking to avoid state laws that impose costs for frivolous litigation tactics.
