InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[olddog967]

Red Angus; On a quick search here is how the 1st Circ handled sanctions for an attorney's delaying actions;

"We have one more base to touch. If the shoe fits, the court of appeals may impose sanctions. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (authorizing awards of "just damages" and "double costs" for frivolous appeals); 28 U.S.C. § 1912 (similar); 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ("Any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct."). The plaintiff urges that this is an appropriate instance for the imposition of such sanctions.

We have said that "[a]ppellate sanctions are aimed at discourag[ing] litigants from wasting time and resources of both their opponents and the judicial system with arguments that are without merit." Transnational Corp. v. Rodio & Ursilio, Ltd. , 920 F.2d 1066, 1072 (1st Cir. 1990); see also Toscano v. Chandris, S.A. , 934 F.2d 383, 387 (1st Cir. 1991) (explaining that sanctions are a proper response to a frivolous appeal). By like token, sanctions are an appropriate means of discouraging parties and their counsel from wasting the time of courts and other litigants by prosecuting appeals in ways that deviate substantially from the rules. See , e.g. , Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS , 809 F.2d 1050, 1053 (5th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with FRAP rules); Hamblen v. County of Los Angeles , 803 F.2d 462, 464-65 (9th Cir. 1986) (similar). Here, the imposition of sanctions may well serve either or both of these purposes.

In order to ensure that we hear both sides of the story, we direct the plaintiff's counsel to prepare, file, and serve within two weeks of the date hereof an application for fees and costs on appeal in the usual format, see , e.g. , Weinberger v. Great N. Nekoosa Corp. , 925 F.2d 518, 527 (1st Cir. 1991) (discussing contents of fee applications), together with a memorandum of law, not to exceed ten pages in length, in support of the plaintiff's request for sanctions. Within two weeks thereafter, the appellant shall file a memorandum (subject to the same page limitation) attempting to show cause (if any there be) why sanctions should not be assessed against R&D and its counsel, jointly and severally. R&D may, if it so elects, file at the same time an affidavit of its counsel commenting upon the reasonableness of the fees requested by the applicant.

The appeal is dismissed with prejudice . We retain appellate jurisdiction for the purpose of further considering the plaintiff's request for sanctions . The parties shall make the filings described herein within the assigned time parameters . We shall withhold mandate until the question of sanctions has been resolved ."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=951455