Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp.
48 F.3d 1320 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 1993 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a motion for sanctions must be made separately from other motions and must not be filed with the court unless the opposing party is first given a 21-day "safe harbor" period to withdraw or correct the challenged contention. An attorney's pre-filing inquiry is judged by a standard of objective reasonableness, and an attorney is entitled to rely on a client's plausible factual representations.
Facts:
- George Hadges was a licensed harness racehorse driver, trainer, and owner.
- In 1989, Yonkers Racing Corp. (YRC) denied Hadges the right to work at its racetrack.
- In prior litigation between the parties (Hadges I), YRC's General Manager, Robert Galterio, submitted an affidavit stating the YRC ban did not prevent Hadges from working at other tracks, including the Meadowlands.
- In a subsequent, separate lawsuit against the Meadowlands, its General Manager, Bruce Garland, submitted an affidavit stating that Meadowlands banned Hadges in 1992 specifically because of the YRC ban.
- Based on the Garland affidavit, Hadges initiated the current action to set aside the judgment in Hadges I.
- In his filings for the current action, Hadges submitted a sworn statement, supported by a memorandum from his attorney William Kunstler, claiming he had been 'out of work' for over four years due to a universal boycott by racetracks.
- Hadges also submitted an undated 'scratch sheet' as evidence that state racing judges had improperly prevented him from racing a horse at Yonkers Raceway on October 31, 1989.
- It was later revealed that Hadges had raced at Monticello Raceway 12 times in 1991 and 1993, and the scratch sheet was from a 1987 race, not 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- In a prior action (Hadges I), Hadges sued YRC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted summary judgment to YRC.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment in Hadges I.
- Hadges then filed the instant action in the S.D.N.Y. under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking to set aside the judgment in Hadges I on the grounds of fraud on the court.
- In its motion to dismiss the Rule 60(b) action, YRC also requested that the court impose Rule 11 sanctions on Hadges and his attorney, William Kunstler.
- The district court denied Hadges's Rule 60(b) motion but granted the request for sanctions.
- The district court fined Hadges $2,000 and formally censured Kunstler.
- Hadges and Kunstler appealed the imposition of sanctions and the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 a district court abuse its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions on a party and his attorney where the moving party failed to comply with the rule's procedural requirement of a 21-day 'safe harbor' period, and where the attorney's factual contentions were based on objectively reasonable representations from his client?
Opinions:
Majority - Feinberg, Circuit Judge
Yes, a district court abuses its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions under these circumstances. The court reversed the sanctions, holding that procedural compliance with Rule 11, particularly the safe harbor provision, is mandatory. YRC failed to request sanctions in a separate motion and, more importantly, failed to provide Hadges and Kunstler the required 21-day period to withdraw or correct their misstatements. The record shows that Hadges did, in fact, correct the misstatements shortly after YRC requested sanctions, indicating the safe harbor would have achieved its purpose. Furthermore, the court found that Kunstler's reliance on his client's statements was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. An attorney is not required to certify that representations are 'well grounded in fact' but only that they have 'evidentiary support' after a reasonable inquiry, which may include reliance on a client's sworn statements. Finally, the court noted that the monetary sanction against Hadges for filing a disqualification motion was improper under Rule 11(c)(2)(A), which prohibits such sanctions against a represented party for advancing a frivolous legal argument.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant interpretation of the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, solidifying the mandatory nature of the 21-day safe harbor provision as a prerequisite for party-initiated sanctions. By reversing the sanctions, the court emphasized the new rule's goal of reducing satellite litigation over sanctions and providing a clear path for attorneys to avoid punishment by correcting errors. The opinion also clarifies the standard for an attorney's pre-filing inquiry, affirming that reliance on objectively reasonable client representations is sufficient. This protects attorneys from sanctions when a client's story, while plausible, later proves inaccurate, thereby reducing the chilling effect of sanctions on zealous advocacy.
Unlock the full brief for Hadges v. Yonkers Racing Corp.