Patrick Collins, Inc. v. David Osburn ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1498
PATRICK COLLINS, INC., d/b/a Elegant Angel,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID OSBURN, f/k/a Doe #1, f/k/a Sealed Defendant,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:12-
cv-01294-PWG)
Submitted: January 27, 2015 Decided: March 4, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John C. Lowe, JOHN LOWE, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellant. William F. C. Marlow, Jr., MARLOW & WYATT, Towson,
Maryland; Ira M. Siegel, LAW OFFICES OF IRA M. SIEGEL, Beverly
Hills, California, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Osburn appeals the district court’s order
granting Patrick Collins, Inc.’s (“Collins”) motion to
voluntarily dismiss its action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2) and denying Osburn’s motion for summary judgment and
request for attorney fees and costs. Osburn also appeals the
district court’s order denying Osburn’s motion for
reconsideration, which, in part, sought sanctions under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11. Underlying the district court’s orders was its
finding that Collins had a reasonable factual basis for filing
the underlying complaint and did not file the complaint in bad
faith.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
order denying attorney fees and costs and denying sanctions
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v. Stillwell,
336 F.3d 311, 321 (4th Cir. 2003). “Because determination of
bad faith is a finding of fact underlying the district court’s
discretionary decision to award fees, we will review that
finding under a clearly erroneous standard.” Hyatt v. Shalala,
6 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 1993). Having reviewed the entire
record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err
when it found that Collins did not act in bad faith in filing
its complaint. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order granting Collins’s motion to voluntarily dismiss pursuant
2
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and denying Osburn’s motion for
summary judgment and request for attorney fees and costs.
Furthermore, where a party seeks sanctions under Rule
11, the moving party’s “motion for sanctions must be made
separately from any other motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).
Osburn’s argument for Rule 11 sanctions was not made by separate
motion. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying
sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Cohen v. Am. Sec.
Ins. Co., 735 F.3d 601, 607 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order denying Osburn’s motion for
reconsideration.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3