Warning: file_put_contents(/home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-content/uploads/wpo/images/wpo_logo_small.png.webp): failed to open stream: Disk quota exceeded in /home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-optimize/vendor/rosell-dk/webp-convert/src/Convert/Converters/Gd.php on line 428
5th Circuit tells lawyer it is ‘often advisable to read the court’s orders,’ upholds $1,250 sanction – Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
Warning: unlink(/tmp/jnewslibrary-XcSKqt.tmp): No such file or directory in /home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-filesystem-ftpext.php on line 142
Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
  • Home
  • Hot Topics
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Big Law
  • Small Law
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result
Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing
No Result
View All Result
Home Hot Topics

5th Circuit tells lawyer it is ‘often advisable to read the court’s orders,’ upholds $1,250 sanction

Daily Legal Briefing by Daily Legal Briefing
April 12, 2022
in Hot Topics
0
Judge imposes default judgment against former Littler Mendelson client for ‘subversive approach to discovery’
4
SHARES
32
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


  1. Home
  2. Web First
  3. 5th Circuit tells lawyer it is ‘often advisable…

Trials & Litigation

5th Circuit tells lawyer it is ‘often advisable to read the court’s orders,’ upholds $1,250 sanction

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 11, 2022, 10:05 am CDT

money and gavel

Image from Shutterstock.

A federal appeals court has upheld a $1,250 sanction against a Dallas lawyer for the attorney fees incurred by his litigation opponent when he misread a federal judge’s ruling.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans upheld the sanction against Matthew R. Scott of the Scott Law Firm in an April 8 per curiam opinion.

“When litigating in federal district court, it is often advisable to read the court’s orders,” the appeals court said.

Scott had misread a court order allowing him to file a second amended complaint in his client’s discrimination lawsuit against MEI Inc. The second amended complaint would have added two claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act to six Title VII claims for his client, Melissa Luna.

Scott thought that the amended lawsuit attached to his motion for leave to file had been accepted, and there was no need to file it separately. His problems began when he sought leave to file a third amended complaint after Luna’s deposition. He had until April 14, 2021, for amendment, but he didn’t seek leave to amend until April 20.

Scott thought that the second amended complaint had been filed, so his revised complaint would only drop three existing Title VII claims. But because the second amended complaint was never filed, the third amended complaint would have added the family leave claims.

“Thus, Scott’s tardy amendment would add new claims to the litigation after Luna’s deposition, substantial discovery and the filing of a motion for summary judgment,” the appeals court said.

The district court denied leave to amend and issued an order to show cause why he shouldn’t be sanctioned.

The federal district court thought that Scott had misled the court by contending that his third amended complaint would only drop claims because it also added claims.

In his response, Scott explained his misreading of the court’s order granting leave to amend.

“I apologize to the court for my mistakes, but I assure the court that those mistakes are not representative of my abilities as an attorney nor evidence of misconduct,” he wrote.

Scott’s response said he has litigated “around 750 lawsuits,” and he has worked throughout his career to develop a reputation for excellence, candor and professionalism. Several lawyers refer potential clients to him, including lawyers at the law firm representing MEI Inc., he said.

The district court said it was satisfied that Scott understood the seriousness of the situation and ordered him to pay $1,250 to MEI Inc. for the attorney fees incurred in responding to his motion and the show-cause order.

One of Scott’s arguments on appeal was that it is illegitimate for a court to order a lawyer to reimburse the other party for a response to a court order or a party’s motion.

That argument is “frivolous,” the 5th Circuit said. “Scott cites no authority supporting his hunch that a sanction in these circumstances is illegitimate. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide otherwise.”

The 5th Circuit said that argument and three others raised on appeal were all “paper-thin.”

The appeals court described the $1,250 sanction as “modest” and said the district court had “ample factual and legal bases” to impose it.

“Scott made a mistake,” the 5th Circuit said. “The district court imposed a reasonable sanction to reimburse MEI for the expense of dealing with that mistake.”

Scott’s client settled her case while her appeal was pending, according to a docket entry in her case.

Scott did not immediately respond to the ABA Journal’s email seeking comment. An automatic reply said he was out of the office to attend a funeral outside Texas.

Hat tip to Law360 and Bloomberg Law, which had coverage of the decision.





Click to Read Original Article

Previous Post

Law firm’s managing partner had a ‘fixation’ with employee surveillance, wiretap suit says

Next Post

Davis Polk Loves Recruiting Associates From This Law School

Daily Legal Briefing

Daily Legal Briefing

Related Posts

Law firm’s managing partner had a ‘fixation’ with employee surveillance, wiretap suit says
Hot Topics

Law firm’s managing partner had a ‘fixation’ with employee surveillance, wiretap suit says

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 12, 2022
Law school applicants are down, for now, for the first time since 2018
Hot Topics

Following a boost in 2021, national average score for February 2022 MBE drops

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 12, 2022
Google violated its ‘don’t be evil’ code when it fired 3 outspoken employees abiding by mandate, suit says
Hot Topics

Google’s ‘privileged’ email labeling, said to prevent lawsuit disclosure, was ‘eyebrow raising,’ judge says

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 11, 2022
New law allows this state’s judges to personally solicit campaign donations; ethics opinion adds wrinkle
Hot Topics

New law allows this state’s judges to personally solicit campaign donations; ethics opinion adds wrinkle

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 11, 2022
Kirkland tops $6B in revenue; another Pop-Tarts suit is tossed
Hot Topics

Kirkland tops $6B in revenue; another Pop-Tarts suit is tossed

by Daily Legal Briefing
April 9, 2022
Next Post
Davis Polk Loves Recruiting Associates From This Law School

Davis Polk Loves Recruiting Associates From This Law School

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Premium Content

Why CRM Software Should Be The Hub Of Your Firm’s Marketing Plan

What To Look For In Legal Matter Management Software

June 7, 2022
Federal appeals courts go remote amid COVID-19 surge

Federal appeals courts go remote amid COVID-19 surge

January 4, 2022
As GDPR Continues To Cross The Pond, You Should Get Your Feet Wet On Data Protection Issues

As GDPR Continues To Cross The Pond, You Should Get Your Feet Wet On Data Protection Issues

January 13, 2023

Browse by Category

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

About US

Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines | Daily Legal Briefing.
Online coverage of breaking legal news and current law headlines from around the US. Top stories, videos, insight, and in-depth analysis.

Categories

  • Big Law
  • Breaking
  • Business
  • Hot Topics
  • Law School
  • Legal Tech
  • Small Law

Recent Updates

  • With Layoffs Lurking, Does Biglaw Pass The Vibe Check?
  • A Law Firm That’s A ‘Big Happy Family’ Is A Red Flag
  • Need To Go To Trial? The Best Trial Practices Out There

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

No Result
View All Result
  • Contact Us
  • Home

© 2021 Daily Legal Briefing | Breaking Legal News & Current Law Headlines

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?

Warning: unlink(/tmp/jnewsfirstload-MxjSkZ.tmp): No such file or directory in /home/customer/www/dailylegalbriefing.com/public_html/wp-admin/includes/class-wp-filesystem-ftpext.php on line 142