Summaries of Selected Opinions, 0618 COBJ, Vol. 47, No. 6 Pg. 92
| Position | Vol. 47, 6 [Page 92] |
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1348. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Ass’n. 3/30/2018. D.Colo. Judge Bacharach. Attorney Sanctions— Violation of Disclosure Order—District Court Authority—Due Process—Attorney Fees.
Appellants are attorneys who represented Summit Park Townhome Association in a dispute with its insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, about the amount payable for hail damage. The attorneys violated a disclosure order by failing to disclose information indicating that the appraiser they hired was not impartial. The district court assessed $354,350.76 in attorney fees and expenses as sanctions.
On appeal, the attorneys argued that the district court exceeded its authority in entering the disclosure order. Regardless of whether the district court had authority to issue the disclosure order, the attorneys were required to comply with the order because the district court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and they could be sanctioned for noncompliance.
The attorneys also challenged the district court’s conclusion that they had violated the disclosure order. The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that the attorneys failed to disclose the extent of their relationship with the appraiser. The district court properly invoked 28 USC § 1927, which provides for sanctions against an attorney who unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the proceedings, to award attorney fees to the insurance company for preparation of the sanctions motion, the application for attorney fees and expenses, and other related work. Further, the attorneys had an opportunity to respond to the application for attorney fees, which supplied them due process.
Finally, the Tenth Circuit held that the amount of the attorney fees awarded was reasonable in light of the complexity of the case, the number of strategies pursued, and the responses necessitated by the other party’s maneuvering.
The order was affirmed.
No. 17-6001. United States v. Green. 4/6/2018. W.D.Okla. Judge Baldock. Motions for Sentence Reduction—Jurisdiction over Successive Motions—Sentencing Factors Considered.
Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of using a communication facility to facilitate the acquisition of cocaine powder. His presentence investigation report recommended an advisory Guideline sentencing range of 110 to 137 months’ imprisonment. The district court concluded his range was actually 92 to 115 months, but it varied upwardly from this range, despite defendant’s pleas for leniency, and sentenced him to 130 months’ imprisonment. The U.S. Sentencing Commission subsequently enacted Amendment 782, reducing the Guideline offense level of many drug offenses by two levels. Citing Amendment 782, defendant fled two motions for a reduced sentence under 18 USC § 3582(c) (2), both of which the district court denied.
On appeal from the second denial, defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by not considering all the facts and circumstances of his case. He argued that the district court’s denial should be reversed or, alternatively, the case should be remanded. The Tenth Circuit first addressed whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial