Van Stelton et al v. Van Stelton et al
Filing
253
ORDER denying 130 Amended Motion for Sanctions (See Order Text). Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 9/29/2014. (des)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
VIRGIL VAN STELTON, CAROL VAN
STELTON,
AND
ALVIN
VAN
STELTON,
No. C11-4045-MWB
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JERRY VAN STELTON, DONNA VAN
STELTON, EUGENE VAN STELTON,
GARY CHRISTIANS, DOUG WEBER,
SCOTT GRIES, NATE KRIKKE,
ROBERT E. HANSEN, DANIEL
DEKOTER,
OSCEOLA
COUNTY,
IOWA, AND DEKOTER, THOLE AND
DAWSON, P.C.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
AMENDED MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
Defendants.
___________________________
This case is before me on plaintiffs’ Amended Motion For Sanctions (docket no.
130). In their motion, plaintiffs seek sanctions based on defendants Doug Weber, Scott
Gries, Nate Krikke, Robert E. Hansen, and Osceola County’s (collectively, “the County
defendants”) answer and counterclaim to plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The
County defendants have filed a timely response to plaintiffs’ motion.
It is well settled that courts have inherent powers to sanction litigants for conduct
that abuses the judicial process. See Gas Aggregation Servs., Inc. v. Howard Avista
Energy, L.L.C., 458 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Lamb Eng’g & Constr. Co.
v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 103 F.3d 1422, 1435 (8th Cir. 1997)); see also Willhite
v. Collins, 459 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 403
F.3d 558, 564 (8th Cir. 2005). These powers “are governed not by rule or statute but
by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S.
32, 43 (1991) (citation omitted). Under these powers, courts can impose sanctions
including shifting attorney’s fees. See id. at 44-45. Because of the potency of inherent
powers, “[a] court must exercise its inherent powers with restraint and discretion, and a
primary aspect of that discretion is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction.” Harlan
v. Lewis, 982 F.2d 1255, 1262 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Chambers, 501 U.S. at 44-45). A
finding of “bad faith” is specifically required in order to assess attorneys fees pursuant
to the court’s inherent authority. See Willhite, 459 F.3d at 870.
At the time plaintiffs filed their motion, they also filed a motion to dismiss the
County defendants’ counterclaim for abuse of process. On January 15, 2014, I denied
plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the County defendants’ counterclaim for abuse of process.
In denying plaintiffs’ motion, I found the County Defendants’ counterclaim adequately
stated a viable abuse of process claim under Iowa law. Therefore, because the County
defendants have stated a viable counterclaim for abuse of process, I conclude that
sanctions are inappropriate in this case and plaintiffs’ Amended Motion For Sanctions is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of September, 2014.
______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?