Williams v. Biomedical Research ( 2022 )

Case: 22-30064 Document: 00516445060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 24, 2022
No. 22-30064
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Patricia G. Williams,
Plaintiff,
versus
Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest
Louisiana,
Defendant,
Victoria Plante-Northington,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:16-CV-01615
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-30064 Document: 00516445060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2022
No. 22-30064
Per Curiam:*
Victoria Plante-Northington, counsel for the plaintiff in this litigation,
appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions against her in connection
with an email she sent to one of that court’s law clerks. She argues that (1)
the sanctions were imposed without due process of law, and (2) her conduct
in sending the email was not sanctionable. We agree with Plante-
Northington’s first argument, and on that basis, we VACATE the order
imposing sanctions and REMAND for further proceedings.
* * *
The underlying action was brought by an employee against her former
employer for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The
district court held a pretrial conference on September 21, 2021 at which
Plante-Northington appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. Most of the hearing
involved routine discussion of how the upcoming trial in the case was to be
conducted. However, as that discussion wrapped up, the district court
changed the subject, saying to Plante-Northington, “Now, Victoria, I am not
happy with you. You wrote a letter to my law clerk that I consider to be
impertinent; indeed, smartass and unprofessional.” This was the first time
the district court had signaled disapproval of Plante-Northington’s email,
which had been sent a few days earlier on September 8. The judge then read
the email 1 into the record and stated:
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
1
The email read as follows: “Hello Ms. Howell, Wow. I thought no news was good
news for my client. [smiley face emoji] The renewed motion for summary judgment has
been pending almost a year. I thought the court would issue a bench order during the
pretrial conference and follow-up with a written opinion as the court has made us file
documents for trial. I had my client and a witness clear their schedules for October 18-22.
I guess we must wait to see if the court will dismiss the case after waiting a year and a half
2
Case: 22-30064 Document: 00516445060 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2022
No. 22-30064
That’s an unprofessional letter, ma’am. This Court has
inherent power to impose sanctions for abusive conduct. . . .
Here, being ever mindful that it must exercise caution in
invoking inherit [sic] power and it must comply with the
mandates of due process, both in determining that the requisite
bad faith exists and in assessing fees, this Court finds that
counsel for the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in responding to
an email to the Court’s career law clerk.
The district judge immediately followed up this explanation by asking Plante-
Northington, “Did you really think that I would not see that email?,” to
which she answered, “No. And I didn’t mean any disrespect with it. I just
noted what had been told to us.” Unmoved, the district court immediately
announced sanctions against Plante-Northington, ordering her
to attend five additional hours of continuing legal education
beyond the requirements in the area of professionalism in 2021,
over and above what she is required to attend as a member of
the Texas Bar. These courses must be accredited by the
Federal Bar Association or the Texas State Bar Association.
Not later than December 31, 2021, she is to provide the Court
with adequate documentation that she has completed not less
than three of those professionalism hours in order to
demonstrate compliance with this order. Not later than March
31 of 2022, she shall provide to the Court sufficient
after the case was remanded. We understand Covid delays but I did not honestly believe it
would take this long. The court said it would rule either at the end of last year or the
beginning of this year. I asked the magistrate judge about a ruling when he set another
scheduling order earlier this year. He advised through a story of his own that it was better
not to ask the court to rule. So we waited hoping no news was good news. I guess we will
see. Do we still need to file the JPO that is due tomorrow? I am getting a déjà vu feeling that
this may go back to the 5th circuit. Please advise about the JPO. I am available September
21 at 10 or 2. Thanks. Victoria Plante-Northington.” The transcript of the scheduling
conference indicates that the district judge misspoke when reading the email into the
record, reading the words, “not to ask the court to rule” as “not to ask the court not to
rule.” The difference appears to have been inconsequential to the court’s decision.
3
Case: 22-30064 Document: 00516445060 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/24/2022
No. 22-30064
documentation that she has completed the required remaining
two hours of completed professional courses. . . . The Court
considers this to be a reportable sanction to the Texas Bar
Association and any other state bar association that you may be
affiliated with. That sanction is imposed immediately.
Plante-Northington attempted to urge the court to reconsider, but she was
cut off after a few sentences by the district judge, who said, “that’s all I’m
going to hear about it. . . . [Y]our intent absolutely has zero with me right
now. I know what I read, and it is a critique of my docket management. That
is not your place, ma’am. You don’t control what I do and why I do it.” The
parties to the case ultimately agreed to settle the claims, and the district court
accordingly entered an agreed final judgment on January 6, 2022. Plante-
Northington then filed this appeal of the district court’s sanctions order.
* * *
“We review a district court’s imposition of sanctions under its
inherent power for abuse of discretion.” Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 226
(5th Cir. 1998). Although “[c]ourts of justice are . . . vested, by their very
creation, with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their
presence,” Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 227 (1821), “[a] court must . . .
exercise caution in invoking its inherent power, and it must comply with the
mandates of due process,” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991);
see also U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 cl. 3. Among those mandates is that
a party facing sanctions must be given “adequate notice and an opportunity
to prepare a response.” 1488, Inc. v. Philsec Inv. Corp., 939 F.2d 1281, 1292
(5th Cir. 1991); see also Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 767 (1980)
(“[S]anctions . . . should not be assessed . . . without fair notice and an
opportunity for a hearing on the record.”). A district court’s failure to
observe these due-process requirements in imposing sanctions is an abuse of
discretion. See Thornton v. Gen. Motors Corp., 136 F.3d 450, 455 (5th Cir.
4
Case: 22-30064 Document: 00516445060 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/24/2022
No. 22-30064
1998). To be sure, advance notice is not always required; “in particular
circumstances,” a codified rule, “standing alone, will constitute sufficient
notice of an attorney’s responsibilities.” Philsec, 939 F.2d at 1292 n.5. But
“questions of whether an attorney made a good faith argument under the law
or . . . interposed a pleading . . . for an improper purpose are more ambiguous
and may require more specific notice of the reasons for contemplating
sanctions.” Veillon v. Expl. Services, Inc., 876 F.2d 1197, 1202 (5th Cir. 1989)
(quoting Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1560 (11th Cir. 1987)).
We think this case clearly falls into the latter category. There was no
codified rule that so inarguably prohibited Plante-Northington’s conduct
that no advance notice was needed; on the contrary, the district court
imposed the sanctions against her under its inherent powers, which are not
codified in statutes or court rules. Whether her email was disrespectful
enough to warrant sanctions under this power, and whether in sending it she
acted in “bad faith” (a required element for the imposition of inherent-power
sanctions, Dawson v. United States, 68 F.3d 886, 895 (5th Cir. 1995)), are
precisely the kind of “ambiguous” questions for which she was entitled to
notice and an opportunity to prepare a response.
That being so, we conclude that the district court’s imposition of
sanctions did not comply with the constitutional requirements of due
process. The district judge signaled his intent to sanction Plante-Northington
for the first time at an oral hearing on an unrelated matter. He then imposed
the sanctions just minutes later at that hearing. Plante-Northington was
allowed to utter only a few sentences in her defense before she was cut off.
More importantly, she was given no advance notice sufficient for preparing a
written or oral submission in response to the contemplated sanctions. As we
have held under similar circumstances, “[p]roviding [a party facing
sanctions] with an opportunity to mount a defense ‘on the spot’ does not
comport with due process.” Philsec, 939 F.2d at 1292; see also Thornton, 136
5
Case: 22-30064 Document: 00516445060 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/24/2022
No. 22-30064
F.3d at 454–55; Matter of Dallas Roadster, Ltd., 846 F.3d 112, 134 (5th Cir.
2017); Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 316 n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).
Rather, “there must be specific notice of the reasons for contemplating
sanctions. . . . After it gives notice the court must also give the violating
attorney an opportunity to respond to the possible sanctions.” Spiller v. Ella
Smithers Geriatric Ctr., 919 F.2d 339, 347 (5th Cir. 1990). Granted, a district
court usually has some flexibility as to the precise manner of giving notice of
potential sanctions and an opportunity to respond. No “elaborate or formal
hearing” is required; “[s]imply giving a chance to respond to the charges
through submission of a brief is usually all that due process requires.” Id.Nevertheless, the district court in this case did not afford Plante-Northington
notice or an opportunity to respond in any form that met the requirements of
due process. We therefore must vacate its order imposing sanctions.
Plante-Northington also argues on appeal that her conduct was not
sanctionable. At this juncture, however, rather than address her argument to
that effect, we opt to remand so as to give the district court an opportunity to
reimpose sanctions, should it choose to do so, in a manner compliant with
due process. This has been the disposition in past cases where we have held
that sanctions were imposed without adequate procedural safeguards. See
Dallas Roadster, 846 F.3d at 134; Philsec, 939 F.2d at 1292. We believe that
the question of whether Plante-Northington’s conduct was sanctionable
would be better decided on a more developed record.
* * *
The district court’s order imposing sanctions is VACATED, and the
case is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.
6