Jon R. Deutsch v. Phil's Icehouse, Incorporated, et al.

The Plaintiff has the right to voluntarily dismiss a civil action if a Defendant has not filed a dispositive motion. Inherent power sanctions are a recent judicial creation. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were first adopted by the High Court in December 1937. The most recent amendments became effective on Dec. 1, 2016. If there is a conflict between FRCP R. 11 and a district court’s inherent power to sanction, R. 11 prevails because the FRCP are codified. Moreover, inherent power sanctions are limited and a tool of last resort as noted by the Supreme Court in Chambers v. NASCO. The inherent power sanction cannot be used to overcome jurisdictional errors or the safe-harbor provisions of Rule 11. If a district court simultaneously invokes Rule 11and inherent power sanctions, Rule 11 prevails. The questions presented are: Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held, in conflict with the decisions of the Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Circuit and prior Fifth Circuit precedent, that a case can be kept open indefinitely to allow the district court to late sanction the Plaintiff. Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held, in conflict with Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, Ninth Circuit, prior Fifth Circuit, and Supreme Court precedent, that if a district court simultaneously invokes Rule 11 and inherent power sanctions, that inherent power sanctions take precedent and can be used to overcome jurisdictional errors and the limits of R. 11, including the safe-harbor provision.