United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit over a commission for efforts undertaken in procuring a sports apparel license, sanctions award for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sanction a law firm because of its tenuous connection with the case, or in refusing to sanction a client because the client's conduct did not cause his attorneys to violate Rule 11. The district court's reduction of the award is reversed where the reasonable attorney fees incurred by defendants due to the sanctionable conduct constituted the least amount sufficient to deter future violations.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/11/2009
• Published 02/11/2009

Judges

• Before:  MERRITT and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Kevin Robert McDermott, Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., LPA, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.  B. Randall Roach, Martin, McCarty, Richman & Wright, Fairborn, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Kevin Robert McDermott, Daniel M. Anderson, Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., LPA, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.  B. Randall Roach, Martin, McCarty, Richman & Wright, Fairborn, Ohio, Christopher Jon Cornyn, Springboro, Ohio, for Appellees.   Paul R. Leonard, Centerville, Ohio, pro se.