Webber v. Leson Chevrolet, Inc., E.D. Louisiana No. 22-910 is an example of repeated violations that provoked sanctions by the federal court. Sanctions were awarded based on Rule 16 and 28 U.S.C. §1927. The 1927 sanctions were based on repeated efforts to relitigate already resolved issues.
Against this backdrop, the Court turns again to Gorham’s record in this case. The first court-ordered conference Gorham missed in this case was August 16, 2023 — almost two years after being sanctioned $2,000 by Judge Lemelle in an effort to deter such future violations. As was the case with Judge Lemelle’s initial $200 sanction, his subsequent $2,000 sanction clearly did not have had the desired or intended effect, as counsel has now missed three more court-ordered conferences or hearings in this case (to go along with the four from Dunn).
Compounding these failures, Gorham continues to ignore the Court’s orders and directions concerning her ill-advised motion for sanctions and insists on continuing to aggressively litigate that motion and the issues raised therein, despite the Court very pointedly denying that motion and explaining at the June 20, 2024 hearing that her motion to reconsider would also be denied. (Rec. doc. 113).
Notably, the Court-ordered briefing in which Gorham was directed to address her non-appearances in this case was long on grievance and complaints about opposing counsel’s conduct and the Court’s treatment of her and very short on acceptance of responsibility, remorse, or anything approaching a mea culpa for routinely failing to appear.[5] She persists in re-litigating a losing cause (which consists entirely of attacks on opposing counsel’s professionalism), which requires opposing counsel to respond and, of course, requires the Court to continue to grapple with a denied motion.
Based upon all this, the Court finds that Gorham’s third non-appearance in this case is a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and that a sanction is appropriate for that violation. Unlike Rule 11, Rule 16 proscribes certain acts regardless of purpose or motivation. Failure to attend a scheduled hearing falls within this category — no doubt serial failures qualify. Improper motive, bad-faith, even reckless behavior, is not a prerequisite for finding a violation of the Rule. So long as the court is convinced counsel or her office received proper and timely notice, a negligent failure to attend the scheduled conference amounts to a violation of the Rule.
In addition to this violation, the Court also finds that Gorham’s insistence on re-litigating the matters raised in her motion for sanction is a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 192 7, which provides, Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Gorham’s Motion for Sanctions was denied due to her own non-appearance at the hearing on that motion as well as on the merits. (Rec. doc. 100). At the oral argument on her “Motion for Objections to the Magistrate’s Order and Rule to Show Cause,” the Court made it abundantly clear that the time for trying to support those arguments had passed and warned counsel against continuing to lash out at opposing counsel. (Rec. doc. 113, passim). The Court even short-circuited Defense Counsel’s argument with this closing observation:
MR. BEEBE: Thank you, Your Honor. I’m attempting to avoid that we have any more vitriol.
THE COURT: I’ve just spent 15-20 minutes doing the same thing.
MR. BEEBE: Very good.
THE COURT: I feel like Ms. Gorham is hearing what I’m saying.
(Id. at 19) (emphasis added). The Court was wrong about that last bit, given that Gorham followed up immediately with yet another pleading doubling down on her attacks on counsel’s professionalism and taking the additional step of including declarations made under penalty of perjury repeating those same attacks.
This is all wasteful in the extreme. The Court finds that Gorham’s conduct along this continuum rises to the level of conduct that has unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, in violation of Section 1927.