Thomas J. Gagliardo v. Peninsula Regional Medical Ctr

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-03255-MJG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998795705]. Mailed to: Deborah Parsons. [11-1258]

Appeal: 11-1258

Document: 44

Date Filed: 02/24/2012

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1258

THOMAS J. GAGLIARDO,
Appellant,
and
DEBORAH ASHTON PARSONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENINSULA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant – Appellee.
-------------------------METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION,
Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:08-cv-03255-MJG)

Submitted:

February 3, 2012

Decided:

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

February 24, 2012

Appeal: 11-1258

Document: 44

Date Filed: 02/24/2012

Page: 2 of 5

Thomas J. Gagliardo, Appellant Pro Se. Randi Klein Hyatt, Adam
Thomas Simons, KOLLMAN & SAUCIER, PA, Timonium, Maryland, for
Appellee.
John R. Ates, ATES LAW FIRM, PC, Alexandria,
Virginia; Richard Randolph Renner, KOHN, KOHN & COLAPINTO, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1258

Document: 44

Date Filed: 02/24/2012

Page: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Thomas
Parsons,

J.

appeals

Defendant,

Gagliardo,

the

Peninsula

attorney

district
Regional

for

court’s
Medical

Plaintiff

order

Center,

sanctions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2006).
Gagliardo,
imposed

the

district

sanctions

court

against

abused

him.

its

awarding

the

$23,657.75

in

According to

discretion

Gagliardo

Deborah

alleges

when

it

that

he

engaged in no bad faith conduct, no proceedings were duplicated
by his conduct, Plaintiff’s federal action was filed in good
faith and dismissed as a matter of judicial economy, and the
Defendant suffered no prejudice because of his conduct.

The

Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association has filed
an amicus curiae brief, in which it claims that the district
court

erred

when

it

imposed

sanctions

on

Gagliardo

for

work

Defendant performed in connection with the pursuit of § 1927
sanctions,

and

that

the

district

court

should

not

have

sanctioned Gagliardo for moving to voluntarily dismiss a federal
civil rights claim in order to pursue a related state law claim.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Section 1927 “does not distinguish between winners and
losers, or between plaintiffs and defendants.”
Inc.

v.

Piper,

447

U.S.

752,

762

(1980).

Roadway Express,
Moreover,

“[t]he

statute is indifferent to the equities of a dispute and to the
values advanced by the substantive law.”
3

Id.

Instead, the

Appeal: 11-1258

statute

Document: 44

is

processes.”

Date Filed: 02/24/2012

“concerned
Id.

only

For

with

this

Page: 4 of 5

limiting

reason,

a

the

court

abuse

of

court

considering

the

propriety of a § 1927 award must focus “on the conduct of the
litigation and not on its merits.”

DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d

499, 511 (4th Cir. 1999).
When a district court imposes an award under § 1927,
we review for an abuse of discretion.
174 F.3d 394, 410 (4th Cir. 1999).

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo,
This standard recognizes

that, as in the context of sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11,
“the district court is better situated than the court of appeals
to

marshal

the

pertinent

legal standard” of § 1927.

facts

and

apply

the

fact-dependent

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496

U.S. 384, 402 (1990) (reviewing Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of
discretion).

The

factual

findings

underpinning

court’s award are reviewed for clear error.

the

district

Ohio River Valley

Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. Green Valley Coal Co., 511 F.3d 407, 413
(4th Cir. 2007).
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

considered

the

parties’ and amicus’ arguments and find that the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it imposed § 1927 sanctions on
Gagliardo.

We

also

find

that

the

district

court

properly

sanctioned Gagliardo only for those aspects of the litigation
that would not have occurred but for his vexatious conduct.
thus affirm the district court’s order.
4

We

Parsons v. Peninsula

Appeal: 11-1258

Document: 44

Date Filed: 02/24/2012

Page: 5 of 5

Reg’l Med. Ctr., No. 1:08-cv-03255-MJG (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2011).
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

5