Ronald C. Denis v. State Farm Life Insurance Company ( 2016 )

Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15457
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-81234-KLR
RONALD C. DENIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 17, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Ronald Denis appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees
and costs for his repeated discovery violations. After careful review, we affirm.
Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 2 of 5
Denis served as counsel in the district court for Robert Krupiczer in
Krupiczer’s suit against Appellee State Farm Life Insurance Company (“State
Farm”). Krupiczer alleged that State Farm unlawfully failed to pay proceeds from
a life insurance policy on an individual named Zsolt Rado. State Farm answered
that Krupiczer had not demonstrated that Rado was deceased, State Farm believed
Rado to be alive, and Rado had made false representations about the source of his
income on the life insurance policy application. State Farm also countersued to
rescind the policy. Discovery began, and Krupiczer and Denis refused to
cooperate in any of State Farm’s discovery requests notwithstanding an order
compelling responses to State Farm’s interrogatories and requests for production.
Krupiczer also failed to appear for his deposition despite State Farm’s repeated
attempts to contact him and Denis.
State Farm moved, pursuant to the district court’s inherent authority and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, to strike Krupiczer’s complaint and dismiss the
case, for a default judgment, and for attorney’s fees. State Farm’s motion
contained detailed allegations regarding Krupiczer’s and Denis’s failure to comply
with the court’s discovery schedule and order on the motion to compel, as well as
their failure to respond to numerous telephone calls and emails inquiring whether
Krupiczer intended to pursue the action. State Farm detailed the ways in which it
had expended attorney’s fees and costs, including: research, issuing subpoenas and
2
Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 3 of 5
reviewing subpoenaed responses, taking depositions of Rado’s prior counsel,
identifying local counsel in Hungary to assist in investigation and discovery, and
motions practice related to the discovery violations. State Farm specifically
alleged that Krupiczer’s actions were in bad faith and warranted severe sanctions.
Krupiczer and Denis failed to respond to State Farm’s motion despite the
district court ordering them to do so. The district court granted the motion for
sanctions, striking Krupiczer’s pleadings, dismissing his claim, awarding State
Farm a default judgment on its counterclaim, and awarding State Farm
“reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” of
Krupiczer and Denis to respond to discovery. Doc. 38 at 10. 1 In its order, the
district court found that Krupiczer acted in bad faith, willfully noncomplying with
discovery, State Farm was prejudiced, and lesser sanctions would not serve the
goals of punishment and deterrence. The district court awarded State Farm
attorney’s fees and costs based on an affidavit State Farm’s counsel submitted.
Denis now appeals.
Denis argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding the
entire amount of State Farm’s attorney’s fees and costs rather than only those costs
caused by the noncompliance with discovery. He further complains that the
district court failed to explain how it calculated the amount of the award. Under
1
“Doc.” refers to the docket entry in the district court in this case.
3
Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 4 of 5
Rule 37, when a party fails to attend its own deposition, serve answers to
interrogatories, or respond to a request for inspection, “the court must require the
party failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable
expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3). District courts also have inherent authority to impose
sanctions upon a finding of bad faith. Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th
Cir. 1998). Ordinarily, we review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order
on sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 or its inherent authority. Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1146-47 (11th Cir. 2006) (Rule 37); Barnes,
158 F.3d at 1214 (inherent authority).
Here, however, Denis failed to assert in the district court the objections he
now raises. “Appellate courts generally will not consider a legal issue that was not
presented to the trial court.” Slater v. Energy Servs. Grp., Int’l, 634 F.3d 1326,
1332 (11th Cir. 2011). We have recognized exceptions to this rule, including:
where (1) the issue involves a pure issue of law and refusal to
consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice; (2) the appellant
did not have the opportunity to raise the issue to the district court; (3)
substantial justice is at stake; (4) the proper resolution is beyond any
doubt; and (5) the issue presents significant questions of great public
concern.
Id. None of these exceptions applies here. Because determining whether the
district court was within its discretion to impose sanctions would involve an
4
Case: 15-15457 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 5 of 5
inquiry into whether its fact findings had sufficient support in the record, Denis’s
challenges cannot involve a pure issue of law, and the proper resolution necessarily
is not beyond any doubt. See id; Stewart v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 26
F.3d 115, 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he resolution of factual questions can never be
beyond doubt.”). Moreover, Denis had ample opportunity to raise his challenges to
the district court; indeed, he violated an order to do so. Finally, we do not believe
Denis’s complaints raise issues of substantial justice or significant questions of
great public concern.
For these reasons, we decline to address Denis’s arguments, all of which he
failed to submit to the district court for its consideration in the first instance. We
affirm the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs.
AFFIRMED.
5