Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-24-2009
Lai v. Dist V C Ethics Comm
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1121
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Lai v. Dist V C Ethics Comm" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1148.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1148
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-1121
_____________
KATHARINE LAI
v.
DISTRICT V-C ETHICS COMMITTEE; ROBERT WASSERMAN;
WASSERMAN, JURISTA & STOLZ; BRUCE WISOTSKY;
RAVIN GREENBERG; JULIAN WILSEY; FRANZBLAU DRATCH
Bruce Wisotsky; Ravin Greenberg;
Julian Wilsey; Franzblau Dratch,
Appellants
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District Court of New Jersey
District Court No. 06-cv-02661
District Judge: The Honorable William J. Martini
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 24, 2009
Before: BARRY, SMITH, Circuit Judges
and RESTANI, Judge *
(Filed: June 24, 2009)
*
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
1
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Bruce Wisotsky (“Wisotsky”), Ravin Greenberg, P.C. (“Ravin”), Julian Wilsey
(“Wilsey”), and Franzblau Dratch, P.C. (“Franzblau”, collectively “Appellants”) appeal
an order from the District Court of New Jersey granting their Rule 11 motion as to
sanctions but denying it as to fees. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
This case arises out of Katherine Lai’s (“Lai”) pro se bankruptcy filing in 2001.
The Bankruptcy Court appointed Ravin as Trustee’s counsel, and Wisotsky primarily
worked on the file for the law firm. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, Ravin filed an
adversary proceeding against a company owned by Lai. After a contentious series of
motions, Lai filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against Ravin and
Wisotsky related to their involvement in her bankruptcy claim. Ravin retained Franzblau
for its defense, and Wilsey worked on the case for Franzblau. The state case was
removed to the Bankruptcy Court in May 2002, and the Court dismissed the complaint
and enjoined Lai from filing further claims related to the bankruptcy proceeding without
Court permission. Nonetheless, Lai filed a federal action alleging discrimination by
Raven and Wisotsky. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for the
imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. The District Court granted both motions, but opted to
impose a non-monetary sanction. Appellants appealed the District Court’s denial of their
2
request for attorney fees.1
We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a request for attorney fees for
an abuse of discretion.2 Simmerman v. Corino, 27 F.3d 58, 61 (3d Cir. 1994). “[W]e
evaluate the court’s factual determinations, legal conclusions, and choice of an
‘appropriate sanction’ with substantial deference, considering . . . only whether those
determinations are contrary to reason or without a reasonable basis in law and fact.” Id. at
62 (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)).
In this case, we do not believe that the District Court abused its discretion when it
denied Appellants’ request for monetary sanctions. After stating that it “discern[ed] no
merit” in and found “no valid support” for Lai’s claims, the District Court imposed an
appropriate sanction on Lai. It directed that she may not file another lawsuit or
proceeding for any reason related to the bankruptcy proceeding against Appellants
without the Court’s permission. Furthermore, despite its denial of the fees request, the
District Court stated that “a request for fees and other monetary sanctions would be
appropriate if Plaintiff fails to comply with the Orders of this Court.” Because we believe
that the District Court provided a sufficient sanction while leaving open the possibility for
additional sanctions if Lai violates the terms of the Court’s order, we do not find that the
1
As we write for the benefit of the parties alone, who are familiar with the facts
and procedural history of this case, we confine our discussion to the legal issues presented
and include only those facts necessary to our disposition.
2
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and this Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3
District Court abused its discretion. We will affirm the District Court’s order.
4