Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OldDeckHand
Due to a SCOTUS decision about 10 years ago (Cunnignham v. Hamilton County), immediate appeals of sanctions are now foreclosed, with the exception of one circumstance - this case doesn't meet that circumstance.

I am not sure that Cunningham even applies here. In Cunningham, the issue was whether sanctions imposed under FRCP 37 could be appealed. However, FRCP 37 addresses discovery, and permits sanctions for failure to comply with discovery rules. I think that is a very different situation than when Rule 11 sanctions are imposed after a case is dismissed.

While I can find many appeals of Rule 11 decisions through a Google search (including Phil Berg's appeal in 3rd District, which the Appellate Court ruled on earlier this year), I haven't yet found a case specifically addressing when Rule 11 Sanctions may be appealed. However, the very fact that there are so many - decided after Cunningham was issued, leads me to believe that an appeal is permissible in this situation.
196 posted on 10/13/2009 9:59:04 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]


To: Sibre Fan
'While I can find many appeals of Rule 11 decisions through a Google search (including Phil Berg's appeal in 3rd District, which the Appellate Court ruled on earlier this year), I haven't yet found a case specifically addressing when Rule 11 Sanctions may be appealed. However, the very fact that there are so many - decided after Cunningham was issued, leads me to believe that an appeal is permissible in this situation. "

Yep, you're right.

234 posted on 10/13/2009 10:18:53 AM PDT by OldDeckHand (No Socialized Medicine, No Way, No How, No Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson