Zeltser v. Little Rest Twelve, Inc. (In Re Little Rest Twelve, Inc.)

Case: 16-11354 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-11354
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-22537-CMA; 1”11-bkc-31773-AJC
In re: LITTLE REST TWELVE, INC.,
Debtor.
____________________________________________________
EMANUEL ZELTSER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LITTLE REST TWELVE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 8, 2016)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-11354 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Emanuel Zeltser appeals a bankruptcy court’s orders sanctioning him for
filing a bankruptcy petition in bad faith and awarding Little Rest Twelve, Inc. the
amount of legal fees incurred as a result of that petition. The district court
affirmed. After careful review, we also affirm.
I.
This appeal presents a discrete issue arising out of a group of cases that have
been litigated around the world for almost a decade.1 Little Rest once operated a
restaurant in New York City. A group led by Zeltser and a group led by Patricia A.
Redmond disputed who was authorized to represent Little Rest. Their dispute
stemmed from a larger conflict over Little Rest’s ownership.2 The ownership issue
was pending before both a New York state court and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Florida, which was presiding over a related Chapter 11
action. During the pendency of these actions, Zeltser filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy on behalf of Little Rest in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York. Redmond immediately moved for and was granted a
transfer of the Chapter 7 action to the Florida bankruptcy court. Two weeks later,
the trustee moved to dismiss the Chapter 7 action because of the pending Chapter
11 action against the same debtor. The Florida bankruptcy court dismissed the
1
This opinion focuses on the sanctions issue. For a description of the global litigation,
see generally In re Fisher Island Invs., Inc., 778 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 2015).
2
This Court affirmed summary judgment against Zeltser in his attempt to represent Little
Rest, see Fisher Island, 778 F.3d at 1195, and Redmond is representing Little Rest in this appeal.
2
Case: 16-11354 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 3 of 6
Chapter 7 action but sua sponte reserved its jurisdiction to award sanctions against
Zeltser for filing the Chapter 7 action.
After Redmond moved for sanctions, the bankruptcy court 3 found that “it is
clear . . . that Mr. Zeltser acted improperly and in bad faith in filing the voluntary
chapter 7 bankruptcy case for [Little Rest].” The bankruptcy court determined that
Zeltser knew of the ownership and control dispute, as he had even asked the
bankruptcy court to decide that dispute in the Chapter 11 action. This of course
cast doubt on his authority to file for Chapter 7 for Little Rest. Further, the
bankruptcy court found the Chapter 7 filing “was for the improper purpose of
delaying [] imminent adverse ruling[s] on ownership and control of [Little Rest].”
It emphasized that Zeltser forum shopped, orchestrating the filing of the Chapter
11 action in Florida, the filing of the Chapter 7 action in New York, and attempting
to unsuccessfully remove a case. Finally, the bankruptcy court found Mr. Zeltser
“simply not believable” and gave no weight to his “ex post facto argument[s]” to
avoid sanctions.
After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court awarded Little Rest
$100,586 in attorney’s fees and expenses incurred “as a result of the frivolous
filing.” In that order, the bankruptcy court noted that this action is part of “one of
the most complex and difficult cases pending in the Southern District of Florida,”
3
For the remainder of this opinion we will refer to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Florida as “the bankruptcy court.”
3
Case: 16-11354 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 4 of 6
awarding sanctions “in the context of the forum shopping litigation spawned by
Mr. Zeltser” and the “jurisdictional morass” he created. It added that “the
complexity of these matters[] require[ed] numerous hours of research, drafting, and
preparation.” To arrive at the $100,586 amount, the bankruptcy court applied a
twenty-percent reduction volunteered by Little Rest to account for any duplication
even though the bankruptcy court “specifically [found] Mr. Zeltser responsible for”
those funds as well.
II.
“Federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, have the inherent power to
impose sanctions on parties and lawyers.” In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1309
(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). “To impose sanctions under these inherent powers,
the court first must find bad faith.” Id. We review an award of sanctions for abuse
of discretion and a finding of bad faith for clear error. In re Porto, 645 F.3d 1294,
1303–04 (11th Cir. 2011).
Zeltser argues for the first time in this case that the bankruptcy court was
required to support its finding of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence.
However, he cites no binding precedent for that proposition. We have held “[a]
finding of bad faith is warranted where an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a
frivolous argument,” or where an attorney delays or disrupts litigation. Walker
532 F.3d at 1309 (quotation omitted). But “a court must do more than conclude
4
Case: 16-11354 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 5 of 6
that a party acted in bad faith; it should make specific findings as to the party’s
conduct that warrants sanctions.” Porto, 645 F.3d at 1304 (quotation omitted). As
detailed above, the bankruptcy court marshalled specific evidence to support its
finding of bad faith. It supported its finding with evidence of Zeltser’s delay,
forum shopping, and knowledge that his authority to file actions for Little Rest was
in question. Thus, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding bad
faith. Zeltser’s remaining arguments attack the bankruptcy court’s factual
findings. We discern no clear error in those findings.
Zeltser also attacks the monetary award as “grossly excessive.” “We review
for abuse of discretion the [trial] court’s imposition of sanctions in a certain
amount.” Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1336
(11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). “A [trial] court abuses its discretion if it applies an
incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination,
or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Zeltser attempts to dispute line items on the billing records produced by
Little Rest’s counsel as duplicative, unreasonable, and excessive. The bankruptcy
court held the “numerous hours of research, drafting, and preparation” were a
result of “the jurisdictional morass created by Mr. Zeltser.” It also granted a
twenty-percent reduction in fees that it did not believe Zeltser deserved. The
5
Case: 16-11354 Date Filed: 12/08/2016 Page: 6 of 6
district court added that Zeltser was warned supplemental briefing could increase
the fee award against him. Again, there are no clear errors in these findings.
AFFIRMED.
6