Timothy King v. Gretchen Whitmer
23a0134p.06 (Recommended for Publication) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, attorneys may be sanctioned for filing a complaint containing factual allegations lacking evidentiary support after a reasonable inquiry and legal claims that are frivolous. However, a complaint is not entirely sanctionable if it contains some non-frivolous factual allegations and legal claims, and any sanctions must be tailored to the sanctionable conduct.
Facts:
- On November 3, 2020, Michigan held its presidential election.
- During the subsequent vote counting at the TCF Center in Detroit, numerous Republican election challengers alleged they were systematically harassed, intimidated, and obstructed by election workers.
- The statewide canvass of votes concluded on November 17, 2020.
- No candidate requested a recount within the 48-hour period prescribed by Michigan law.
- On November 23, 2020, the bipartisan Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified the election results, declaring Joseph Biden the winner in the state by 154,188 votes.
- Following certification, Michigan's Governor transmitted the results to the United States Archivist, officially establishing the state's electors for the Democratic Party.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy King and other plaintiffs sued Governor Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The district court granted motions for the City of Detroit and others to intervene as defendants.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for injunctive relief.
- After the case became moot, the City of Detroit served plaintiffs' counsel a 'safe-harbor' letter warning of a forthcoming motion for sanctions if the complaint was not withdrawn.
- Plaintiffs' counsel did not withdraw the complaint, and defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss and for sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
- Plaintiffs then filed for a voluntary dismissal of their complaint.
- The district court held a hearing and issued an order sanctioning all nine of the plaintiffs' attorneys, holding them jointly and severally liable for defendants' attorneys' fees.
- The sanctioned attorneys, as interested parties-appellants, appealed the district court's sanction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 an attorney's complaint violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in its entirety when it contains a mix of factually baseless allegations of widespread fraud and non-frivolous allegations of localized misconduct by election workers?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Kethledge
No. A complaint does not violate Rule 11 in its entirety simply because it contains numerous sanctionable claims; if some allegations and legal claims are non-frivolous, a court must parse the complaint and sanction only the offending parts. The court determined that the plaintiffs' attorneys violated Rule 11 by making factual allegations that were contradicted by their own exhibits, misrepresenting witness testimony, and relying on facially unreliable expert reports to support claims of a vast international conspiracy to manipulate votes through Dominion voting systems. These allegations, along with legal claims based on them, lacked the required evidentiary support and reasonable pre-filing inquiry. However, the complaint also contained credible and well-supported allegations, backed by dozens of affidavits, that Republican election challengers were harassed and intimidated at the TCF Center. The legal claims arising from this alleged misconduct were non-frivolous and therefore not sanctionable. The district court erred by finding the entire complaint sanctionable rather than separating the baseless claims from the colorable ones.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical guidance on the application of Rule 11 sanctions in the context of politically charged election litigation. It clarifies that a complaint is not a sanctionable monolith; courts must distinguish between frivolous content and potentially meritorious claims, tailoring sanctions accordingly. The ruling reinforces the affirmative duty of attorneys to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry, which includes reading their own exhibits and refraining from misrepresenting evidence or relying on facially unqualified experts. This precedent serves as a strong warning against using litigation to advance baseless narratives while simultaneously protecting attorneys who raise legitimate, factually supported issues, even within a flawed complaint.
