C. v. San Marcos Consolidated Independent School District
Filing
81
ORDER GRANTING 55 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RACHEL CRAWFORD
V.
SAN MARCOS ISD
§
§
§
§
§
Cause No. A-09-CA-649 LY
ORDER
Before the Court are: Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Clerk’s Doc. No. 55) filed July 5,
2011; Plaintiff’s Response to Motion for Sanctions (Clerk’s Doc. No. 61) filed August 1, 2011; and
Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response (Clerk’s Doc. No. 67) filed August 12, 2011. The District
Court referred the above-motions to the undersigned for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), FED . R. CIV . P. 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of this Court.
The Defendant filed a motion for sanctions against the Plaintiff’s counsel, Martin Cirkiel and
Yvonnilda Muziz, after the Plaintiff’s attorneys failed to timely respond to discovery requests and
conform with the Court’s scheduling order. The Defendant asks for $9,453.50 in attorney fees. In
response, Cirkiel disputes the breadth and amount of charges submitted by the Defendant.
I.
Legal Standard
Federal law grants the federal courts authority to require an attorney “to satisfy personally
the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred” resulting from “unreasonabl[e]
and vexatious[ ]” conduct that “multiplies the proceedings in any case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. To
award attorneys’ fees, the Court must find “evidence of bad faith, improper motive, or reckless
disregard of the duty owed to the court.” Edwards v. Gen. Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242, 246 (5th Cir.
1998). Additionally, the Court may sanction an attorney who violates FED . R. CIV . P. 11. FED . R.
CIV . P. 11(c)(1). A party may move for sanctions under Rule 11, or the Court may, on its own
initiative, order an attorney “to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not
violated Rule 11(b). FED . R. CIV . P. 11(c)(3). Finally, the Court possesses the inherent power “to
protect the efficient and orderly administration of justice and . . . to command respect for the court’s
orders, judgments, procedures, and authority,” including the power to levy sanctions” for “abusive
litigation practices.” In re Stone, 986 F.2d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 1993).
II.
Analysis
Cirkiel and Muziz failed to respond timely to requests for admissions, a motion to dismiss,
a motion for summary judgment, and failed to timely designate witnesses, produce exhibits, and
complete discovery. On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff’s attorneys filed six motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Late
Motion to Show Authority; (2) Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint; (3) Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Discovery; (4)
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Deemed Admissions; (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Deemed
Admissions; and (6) Plaintiff’s Opposed Late Motion for Leave to File Trial Disclosures. While the
District Court granted most of the Plaintiff’s motions,1 the Court directed the Defendant’s attorney
to file a motion for sanctions and attorneys’ fees.
The Defendant’s motion for sanctions requests $9,453.50 for attorneys’ fees stemming from
the Plaintiff’s lawyers’ conduct. Attached to the motion, the Defendant’s attorney, Bridget
Robinson, provided a table of her time (just over fifty hours), which lists the date of her work, the
matter she worked on, and the time spent.
1
See Clerk’s Doc. No. 49 (granting the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
complaint, motion to enlarge time to respond to discovery, motion to set aside deemed admissions,
and motion for leave to file trial disclosures).
2
The lawsuit centers on which party prevailed at a state administrative proceeding. This suit
largely relies on a record already developed during that proceeding. It should not cost $10,000 to
litigate an issue this narrow in scope. Although the Court agrees with Cirkiel that Robinson’s entries
lack detail, this does not mean that Robinson inflated her hours. The Court will give her the benefit
of the doubt, and assumes that all of the hours billed were actually worked. But this does not mean
that this number of hours was reasonable in the context of this case. Robinson made a conscious
decision to spend a great deal of time on these issues, particularly considering the amount of money
at stake in the case. Robinson didn’t bring a gun to a knife fight; she brought a Stinger missile.2
Further, much of the work Robinson performed had to be performed at some point, and would have
been required regardless of when the Plaintiff filed her motions—the Plaintiff’s delay merely
postponed the work. Considering all of this, the Court will award SMISD $1,000 in attorney fees.
The Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (Clerk’s Doc. No. 55) and
orders the Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay the Defendant $1.000 within ten days of the date of this Order.
SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2011.
_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2
The Defendant filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration as excessive
briefing (Clerk’s Doc. No. 68). This motion exemplifies Robinson’s strategic decisions that create
excessive work. This motion seeks to strike part of the Plaintiff’s response because it exceeded the
page limit in the local rules. Although Robinson complains that this disadvantaged her because her
reply could not also exceed the page limit, the Court does not agree. First, Robinson did not request
additional pages, and second, Robinson used six footnotes in a five-page document—with smaller
font and single spacing—which could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the page limit. The
Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Declaration as Excessive Briefing
(Clerk’s Doc. No. 68).
3
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?