Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitlitigationmediationattorneymotionwilldiscrimination
attorneybad faith

Related Cases

In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury (II), 640 F.2d 49, 6 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 616
View Case »
Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488, 23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 12, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,025, 29 Fed.R.Serv.2d 733
View Case »
Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal.App.3d 171, 203 Cal.Rptr. 13
View Case »
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321
View Case »
In re Marriage of Smith, 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 274 Cal.Rptr. 911, 59 USLW 2388
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,568, 41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1073

Facts

William Edwards was employed by General Motors at its Wichita Falls plant and was subject to a collective bargaining agreement that required grievances to be processed through union procedures. After being investigated for drug use, Edwards was discharged, and he filed a grievance that did not mention race discrimination. In 1996, Crampton filed a lawsuit alleging race discrimination and retaliation, but after a mediation session in December 1996, she conceded that the case was unwinnable yet continued to allow GM to incur legal fees without formally dismissing the case.

In 1994, after receiving complaints that plant employees had been selling and using drugs on the premises of its Wichita Falls plant, GM arranged for Kevin Ray, an experienced undercover drug agent, to investigate.

Issue

Whether a district court may sanction an attorney for filings made in state court prior to removal.

Whether a district court may sanction an attorney for filings made in state court prior to removal.

Rule

District courts are not authorized to impose Rule 11 sanctions for conduct in state court prior to removal, and sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 can be imposed for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings.

Rule 11 does not apply to conduct in state court prior to removal.

Analysis

The court determined that Crampton could not be sanctioned for her pre-removal filings as Rule 11 does not apply to state court conduct. However, after conceding that the case was unwinnable, Crampton continued to allow GM to incur legal fees by not dismissing the case or responding to motions, which constituted unreasonable and vexatious conduct under § 1927.

The court concluded that Crampton could not be sanctioned for her pre-removal filings as Rule 11 does not apply to state court conduct.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the portion of the sanctions based on pre-removal conduct but affirmed the sanctions awarded for post-removal actions, totaling $24,220.

We reverse that portion of the sanctions attributable solely to those filings.

Who won?

General Motors prevailed in the case because the court found that Crampton's actions in prolonging the litigation were unreasonable and vexatious, justifying the imposition of sanctions.

The Court also specifically finds that Crampton has acted in bad faith, with improper motive, and with a reckless disregard of the duty owed to the Court.

You must be