Gutman v. O'Connor ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10772
Summary Calendar
In re: HAROLD O’CONNOR,
Debtor,
---------------------------------------------------
GREG GUTMAN and
PRESTON NATIONAL BANK,
Appellants,
versus
HAROLD O’CONNOR,
Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 3:01-CV-2606-D; 3:01-CV-2607-D____
--------------------
February 13, 2003
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this bankruptcy litigation matter, the bankruptcy court
imposed sanctions pursuant to Rule 9011, Fed. Bankr. R.P., the
sanctions provision substantially similar to Rule 11, Fed. R.
Civ. P. The district court, acting in its appellate capacity,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-10772
-2-
affirmed the bankruptcy court. In their appeal, appellants argue
i.) the bankruptcy court committed error in assessing sanctions
against appellants for allegedly violating the automatic stay
imposed by the court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362; ii.) the
bankruptcy court committed error by failing to sanction
appellee’s counsel for violation Rule 9011, Fed. Bankr. R.P.;
iii.) the bankruptcy court committed error by failing to sanction
appellee’s counsel for presenting perjured testimony in support
of debtor-appellee’s motion for contempt.
It is well-settled that “[w]e review the bankruptcy court’s
findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and decide
issues of law de novo.” In re First City Bancorporation of Texas
Inc., 282 F.3d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Henderson v.
Belknap (In re Henderson), 18 F.3d 1305, 1307 (5th Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1014 (1994)). As the imposition of
sanctions is discretionary, we review the exercise of this power
for an abuse of discretion. See First City Bancorporation, 282
F.3d at 867; Matter of Terrebonne Fuel and Lube, Inc., 108 F.3d
609, 613 (5th Cir.1997). "A court abuses its discretion when its
ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence." Chaves v. M/V Medina
Star, 47 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1995). Bankruptcy courts, in
general, should exercise restraint when considering using its
inherent power to impose sanctions. See id.No. 02-10772
-3-
Our review of the record supports the conclusion of the
bankruptcy court that appellant ignored the automatic stay
imposed by the bankruptcy court, that this conduct merited
sanction, and that the sanction imposed does not constitute an
abuse of discretion. Thus, we find no merit to the arguments
advanced by appellant in this appeal.
The judgment of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.