Phillips vs. Parrish, (5th Cir. 2001)

Text

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20322 Summary Calendar BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; MARITIME ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN ASSOCIATION PENSION RETIREMENT WELFARE AND VACATION FUNDS, Defendants-Appellees. ***************************************************************** No. 01-20446 Summary Calendar BILLY CLAUDE PHILLIPS, Plaint iff, versus BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH; ET AL., Defendants, BEVERLY CROWE PHILLIPS PARRISH, Defendant-Appellee, versus EDWARD TRUNCELITTO, Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-3798 December 27, 2001 * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM: * Billy Claude Phillips appeals the district courtÂ’s dismissal of his action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Phillips is essentially challenging a state courtÂ’s domestic relations order which awarded a porti on of PhillipsÂ’ pension benefits to his former wife, Beverly Parrish. The district court did not err in holding that it was without subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a collateral challenge to a state court order. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas , 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994).

PhillipsÂ’ attorney , Edward Truncelitto, appeals the district courtÂ’s order imposing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanctions against him for filing a frivolous complaint pursuant to ParrishÂ’s motion, arguing that th e mo t ion was not properly filed in accordance with t he procedural requirements of Rule 11(c)(1)(A). Because ParrishÂ’s motion was not served 21 days prior to filing in the district court as required by Rule 11(c)(1)(A) and was filed after the district court rendered its judgment, the district court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions against Truncelitto. S ee Tompkins v. Cyr , 202 F.3d 770, 788 (5th Cir. 2000); Elliot v. Tilton , 64 F.3d 213, 215 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the district courtÂ’s order imposing Rule 11 sanctions against Truncelitto is VACATED.

The district court could have impose d sanct io ns against Truncelitto under its inherent authority. “In order to impose sanctions against an attorney under its inherent power, a court must make a spe cific finding that the attorney acted in `bad faith.’” E llio t , 64 F.3d at 217 (citations omitted). Although the district court held that Phillips’ complaint had no basis in law and did not present a good faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal of existing law , t he district court did not make a specific finding that Truncelitto acted in bad faith. Because such a finding is required, the case is REMANDED for a determination of whether such a finding is appropriate. S ee id . at 217. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38, Parrish has filed motions for damages and costs i ncurred because of the allegedly frivolous appeals filed by Phillips and Truncelitto. Parrish’s motio n for damages and costs against Phillips is GRANTED, and Phillips is ordered to pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2437.50 to Parrish within 30 days of the date of this court’s order. Parrish’s motion for damages and costs against Truncelitto is DENIED.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; MOTION FOR DAMAGES AND COSTS AGAINST PHILLIPS GRANTED; MOTION FOR DAMAGES AND COSTS AGAINST TRUNCELITTO DENIED.

---