Driesen v. Smith et al

Filing 58

ORDER Regarding Defendants Motions For Sanctions 47 and 48 . Sanctions are inappropriate in this case and defendants motions for sanctions are denied (See Order Text). Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 1/02/2014. (Copy w/NEF to pro se Plaintiff and pro se Defendants) (des)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
JAY
DRIESEN,
BUILDERS LLC

RUSTIC

HOME
No. C13-4037-MWB

Plaintiffs,
vs.
MICHAEL J. SMITH et al.,

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS

Defendants.
___________________________
This case is before me on defendants Michael J. Smith and Cadwell Sanford
Deibert & Garry L.L.P.’s motions for sanctions (docket nos. 47 and 48). In their
motions, defendants request that I my inherent power to sanction plaintiffs Jay Driesen
and Rustic Home Builder, L.L.C. for costs associated with their having to file motions
to dismiss in this case. Plaintiffs have filed a resistance to defendants’ motions in
which they contends that they have not engaged in any behavior which would warrant
sanctions.
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. GonzalezLopez, 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.
Although a close question, I find that sanctions are inappropriate in this case.
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this matter and a reading of plaintiffs’ complaint does
not clearly show that they filed the pending action against defendants in bad faith or to
harass them. I have dismissed plaintiffs’ claims based on application of the Rooker–
Feldman doctrine, a complex doctrine which a pro se litigant may well fail to
understand. Therefore, I conclude that sanctions are inappropriate in this case and
defendants’ motions for sanctions are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2nd day of January, 2014.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

2