Farmers Cooperative Society Sioux Center Iowa v. Leading Edge Pork LLC
ORDER re 61 Show Cause Hearing. The court has determined that sanctioning Sawers and Weinberg is not appropriate. The 57 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Attorney Sawers is granted. See text of Order. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 05/10/2017. (jjh) Modified to add motion text on 5/10/2017 (jjh).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,
SIOUX CENTER, IOWA
LEADING EDGE PORK LLC &
LEADING EDGE PORK LLC,
FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,
SIOUX CENTER, IOWA,
The matter before the court is the imposition of sanctions on attorneys Michael
Sawers and Justin Weinberg. On May 3, 2017, the court provided notice that it was
considering whether to impose sanctions on Sawers and Weinberg for their “fil[ing] [of]
documents as attorneys in this case when they were not admitted to practice in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.” May 3, 2017 Order (docket no.
58). On May 10, 2017, the court held a hearing on the issue, at which time Sawers and
Weinberg provided argument as to why they should not be sanctioned. May 10, 2017
Minute Entry (docket no. 61). The matter is now ready for decision.
“By its nature as a court of justice, the district court possesses inherent powers ‘to
manage its affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’”
Wescott Agri-Prods., Inc. v. Sterling State Bank, Inc., 682 F.3d 1091, 1095 (8th Cir.
2012) (alteration omitted) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991)).
“These inherent powers include the ability to supervise and ‘discipline attorneys who
appear before it’ and discretion ‘to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which
abuses the judicial process’ . . . .” Id. (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S. at 43, 44-45).
“Because of the potency of inherent powers, ‘a court must exercise its inherent powers
with restraint and discretion.’” Plaintiffs’ Baycol Steering Comm. v. Bayer Corp., 419
F.3d 794, 802 (8th Cir. 2005) (alteration omitted) (quoting Harlan v. Lewis, 982 F.2d
1255, 1262 (8th Cir. 1993)). Although certain sanctions—such as attorneys fees—may be
imposed only upon a finding of bad faith, monetary sanctions may be imposed without
such a finding. See Harlan, 982 F.2d at 1260; accord Books Are Fun, Ltd. v. Rosebrough,
239 F.R.D. 532, 553-54 (S.D. Iowa 2007).
Sawers and Weinberg have litigated before the court on behalf of Defendants
Leading Edge Pork LLC and Brent Legred (collectively, “Leading Edge”) since removing
the above-captioned case on May 3, 2016. See Notice of Removal (docket no. 2) at 3
(listing Sawers and Weinberg as “Attorneys for Leading Edge Pork, LLC”). Between
May 3, 2016 and May 2, 2017, Sawers and Weinberg were the only attorneys that
appeared on behalf of Leading Edge.
In the Notice of Removal, Sawers indicated that he is licensed to practice in
Minnesota but had a pending pro hac vice motion that would enable him to appear before
the court. See Notice of Removal at 3. However, Sawers failed to file a pro hac vice
motion for nearly twelve months after the Notice of Removal was filed. Despite his failure
to gain admission pro hac vice, Sawers regularly filed to the docket and appeared on behalf
of Leading Edge, while representing to the court that he was admitted pro hac vice. See,
e.g., Oct. 12, 2016 Minute Entry (docket no. 26) (appearing, with Weinberg, at a
telephonic status hearing before United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams); Nov.
14, 2016 Minute Entry (docket no. 42) (appearing as sole defense counsel at a telephonic
status hearing before Judge Williams); Motion to Vacate (docket no. 47) at 2 (signed by
Sawers as “pro hac vice”); Resistence to Motion for Contempt (docket no. 50) at 10
(same). It was only after the court identified Sawers’s failure to gain admission that he
filed a motion to appear pro hac vice. See Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
(docket no. 57). At the May 10, 2017 hearing, the court granted Sawers’s motion to
appear pro hac vice.
Weinberg is licensed to practice in Iowa. However, he is not admitted to practice
in the Northern District of Iowa. Like Sawers, Weinberg has actively litigated the abovecaptioned case for approximately twelve months, despite failing to gain admission. See,
e.g., Answer (docket no. 5) at 4 (signed by Weinberg); July 27, 2016 Minute Entry
(docket no. 12) (appearing as sole defense counsel at a telephonic status hearing before
Judge Williams); Status Report (docket no. 36) at 5 (signed by Weinberg).
Clearly, the Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Iowa further confused this
situation. The Clerk knew Sawers was not admitted and should have known by doing a
record check that Weinberg was also not admitted to practice in the district. One would
assume that the Notice of Removal should therefore have been rejected at the time of initial
filing or during the quality control phase of docketing. It was not. Instead, the Clerk
made entries on the docket sheet suggesting that both Sawers and Weinberg were admitted
to practice in the Northern District of Iowa. This could have had the effect of misleading
the attorneys that they were, in fact, admitted. It was not until a year later that the
undersigned discovered the docketing errors and the attorneys’ negligent conduct.
Thereafter, the attorneys took responsibility for the negligence.
The court finds the primary responsibility for compliance with court rules rests with
Sawers and Weinberg. Their failure to properly gain admission during their twelve
months of litigation before the court was negligent. The court finds such conduct could
warrant sanctions, which could be imposed under the court’s inherent powers. However,
the Clerk of Court bears some responsibility for this situation as well. Therefore, the court
has determined that sanctioning Sawers and Weinberg is not appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2017.
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?