Karara v. Czopek ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 15 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SAID M. KARARA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-1546
(D.C. No. 94-Z-1698)
ANDREW F. CZOPEK and (D. Colo.)
SHEILA R. DEITZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, MCKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Plaintiff filed the motion after this court reversed
an award of Rule 11 sanctions in favor of defendants due to their failure to
comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 11. See Karara v. Czopek,
No. 95-1361 (10th Cir. June 6, 1996).
Upon consideration of plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion, the district court
determined that it had no merit, because (1) the reversal was based solely on
defendants’ failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 11;
(2) the district court would have had inherent authority to impose sanctions
against plaintiff apart from Rule 11; and (3) the dismissal of the underlying
action was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit in all respects. Despite having analyzed
the motion on its merits, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion
as moot.
After reviewing the record, and especially the district court’s language in
its order denying plaintiff’s Rule 11 motion, we conclude that, while the motion
technically was not moot, the district court alternatively and properly exercised its
discretion to deny the motion on its merits. See also Barrett v. Tallon, 30 F.3d
1296, 1301 (10th Cir. 1994) (reviewing district court’s Rule 11 determination for
abuse of discretion).
-2-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-