Hays v. Sony Corp. of America
847 F.2d 412 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, an attorney has an affirmative duty to conduct a pre-filing inquiry that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and a lack of expertise in a particular area of law does not excuse a failure to meet this standard.
Facts:
- In 1982 or 1983, high school teachers Stephanie Hays and Gail MacDonald created a manual for operating their school's DEC word processors.
- Hays and MacDonald distributed copies of their manual to students and other faculty members.
- In 1984, the school district provided the teachers' manual to Sony Corporation of America (Sony).
- The school district asked Sony to modify the manual so it could be used with newly purchased Sony word processors.
- Sony created a modified manual that was in many parts a verbatim copy of the teachers' original manual.
- Sony did not charge the school district for preparing the modified manual and delivered it in December 1984.
- There is no evidence that Sony ever sold or otherwise disseminated the manual outside of the school district.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie Hays and Gail MacDonald filed a lawsuit against Sony Corporation of America in federal district court, alleging common law and statutory copyright infringement.
- Sony filed motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against the plaintiffs' counsel, Emmanuel F. Guyon.
- The district court judge dismissed the plaintiffs' action for failure to state a claim.
- Several months later, the district court judge awarded Sony $14,895.46 in sanctions against Guyon personally.
- Guyon filed a motion to vacate the sanctions award, which the district court denied.
- A notice of appeal was filed in the name of the plaintiffs, Hays and McDonald, appealing both the dismissal of their case and the sanctions order against their attorney to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 sanctions under Rule 11 against an attorney who files a lawsuit containing numerous frivolous claims and requests for relief, even if one of the underlying claims may have been non-frivolous?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner
No. The district court's award of sanctions was proper because Rule 11 requires an attorney to conduct an objectively reasonable pre-complaint inquiry into both the facts and the law for all claims asserted. The court found that the attorney, Guyon, failed this duty by including plainly frivolous claims. The claim for common law copyright infringement was frivolous because federal statute had abolished common law copyright years before the manual was created. Furthermore, all requests for monetary relief—including statutory damages, an accounting of profits, actual damages, and punitive damages—were frivolous because the plaintiffs were ineligible or had no factual basis to support them. A reasonable inquiry would have revealed the baseless nature of these claims. While the core statutory copyright infringement claim for an injunction may have been non-frivolous, its presence did not excuse the filing of a complaint laden with meritless assertions. The court explicitly stated that the Rule 11 standard is objective, akin to a negligence standard in tort law, and makes no allowance for an attorney's inexperience or lack of specialization.
Analysis:
This case is a significant interpretation of the amended Rule 11, establishing that the standard for attorney conduct is objective reasonableness, not subjective good faith. By analogizing the Rule 11 standard to professional negligence, the court clarifies that lawyers have a professional duty to the legal system to avoid filing baseless claims. The ruling puts general practitioners on notice that they act at their peril when litigating in unfamiliar areas of law without either acquiring the necessary expertise or associating with experienced counsel. This decision reinforces the gatekeeping function of Rule 11, empowering district courts to sanction attorneys for filing complaints that are frivolous in part, thereby deterring 'shotgun' pleadings and protecting defendants from the costs of defending against baseless allegations.
