United States Fifth Circuit

In a suit brought by the FDIC against defendant for his alleged involvement in the failure of a large Texas thrift in 1988, the imposition of sanctions on the FDIC based on a finding that its claims were baseless and had an improper purpose is reversed in part and vacated in part where: 1) discovery sanctions were inappropriate as they may only be levied against an individual attorney; 2) for purposes of sanctions under Rule 11, a finding of frivolous pleadings was insupportable; 3) sanctions for costs of the case are proper on the narrow grounds that, under Rule 11 the FDIC improperly pursued the case to delay the case and increase the costs of litigation; 4) a remand was required to determine the sanctions; 5) imposing more than $50 million in sanctions for costs of another administrative proceeding was an abuse of discretion; and 6) an assessment of attorney's fees and interest was an appropriate sanction.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/03/2008
• Published 04/04/2008

Judges

• PER CURIAM:, Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Frank Thomas Hecht, Kathleen Holper Champagne, Ungaretti & Harris, Chicago, IL, James A. Brown, Gene W. Lafitte, Sr. (argued), Liskow & Lewis, New Orleans, LA, Colleen J. Boles, FDIC, Jonathan Goldman Cedarbaum, Kelley Brooke Snyder, Randolph Moss, Paul R. Wolfson, WilmerHale, Washington, DC, Lawrence H. Richmond, FDIC, App. Lit. Unit-Legal Div., Arlington, VA, for FDIC.


• For Appellees:
  
• David J. Beck (argued), Russell Stanley Post, Beck, Redden & Secrest, Stephen D. Susman, Susman Godfrey, Jacks C. Nickens, Nickens, Keeton, Lawless, Farrell & Flack, Houston, TX, Gregory P. Joseph, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices, LLC, New York City, for all Appellees.