Cupit v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 24, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-31126 Clerk
Summary Calendar
In The Matter Of: MICHAEL B CUPIT;
TAMARA A CUPIT,
Debtors,
----------------------------------------
MICHAEL B CUPIT; TAMARA A CUPIT, as Natural Tutrix of the Estates
of Her Minor Children,
Appellants,
versus
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND; et al,
Appellees,
THOMAS J PLUSKAT, in his official capacity as Administrator, De
Bonis No, of the Estate of Mary Reid, Deceased,
Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(2:05-CV-920)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Debtor-Appellant, Michael B. Cupit, claims that the district
court erred by imposing Rule 11 sanctions against him without first
providing adequate notice of the exact nature of his potentially
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
sanctionable conduct. Cupit argues that the district court’s order
to show cause on the sanctions issue was confusing and
insufficiently precise to allow him to prepare an adequate defense
against the imposition of sanctions. We disagree.
“We review all aspects of the district court’s decision to
invoke Rule 11 and accompanying sanctions under the abuse of
discretion standard.”1 Appellate review is deferential because the
imposition or denial of sanctions involves a fact-intensive inquiry
into the circumstances surrounding the activity alleged to be a
violation of Rule 11. The trial court is in the best position to
review the factual circumstances and render an informed judgment,
as it is intimately involved with the case, the litigants, and the
attorneys on a daily basis.2
On July 20, 2005, the district court, after painstakingly
explaining in open court its specific reasons for dismissing
Cupit’s lawsuit, informed him that it found his lawsuit and the
pleadings he had filed in it “totally frivolous” and ordered him to
show cause why he should not be sanctioned under either Rule 11 or
28 U.S.C. §1927. We find that, contrary to Cupit’s contentions, the
court’s discourse was amply sufficient to provide him all the
notice he should have needed to bear his burden — if he could — of
1
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 968 F.2d 523,
529 (5th Cir. 1992).
2
Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 873
(5th Cir. 1988) (en banc).
-2-
showing why he should not be sanctioned. The district court’s
statements clearly indicated that Cupit should be prepared to show
that his actions regarding his lawsuit did not violate any or all
of the provisions of Rule 11 or 28 U.S.C. §1927. This might be
arguably less than specific, but given the extent of Cupit’s
perceived misconduct in this case, the trial court’s handling of
these proceedings was far from an abuse of discretion. We affirm
the district court’s order imposing sanctions against Cupit.
Even though the appellees have not sought additional sanctions
for a frivolous appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
38, this appeal too appears to be frivolous and without merit. We
caution Cupit that any efforts to prolong this matter could expose
him to such sanctions.
SANCTIONS AFFIRMED; CAUTION ISSUED.
-3-