Weathers v. Volunteers of America, North Alabama, Inc.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 16, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-15109
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:08-cv-00591-SLB
YOLANDA J. FAULK,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff,
MIKE WEATHERS,
l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllInterested Party-Appellant,
versus
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, NORTH ALABAMA, INC.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(August 16, 2011)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 10-15109 Date Filed: 08/16/2011 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

Michael Weathers, who served as Yolanda J. Faulk’s counsel in her
employment discrimination lawsuit filed against Volunteers of North America,
appeals the district court’s sanctions order, comprised of two separate sanctions
for two different instances of making misrepresentations in connection with
motions to compel that he filed on her behalf. His first misrepresentation
concerned the nature of his client’s visit to defense counsel, which was made in
pleadings related to his first motion to compel, and his second misrepresentation
concerned his certification that he conferred in good-faith with defense counsel to
resolve a discovery dispute before filing another motion to compel.
On appeal, Weathers argues that the court erred by imposing sanctions
against him because: (1) it shifted its basis of authority, which violated his due
process rights; (2) it misapplied Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B) for his conduct in
filing his first motion to compel; (3) his motions to compel were substantially
justified; and (4) there were other circumstances it failed to consider that made the
sanction unjust.
We review a district court’s decision to impose sanctions for an abuse of
discretion. See Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1237-38
(11th Cir. 2007) (sanctions under court’s inherent authority). Serra Chevrolet,
2
Case: 10-15109 Date Filed: 08/16/2011 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1146-47 (11th Cir. 2006) (sanctions
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37).
We have fully considered the briefs and the record. The district court’s
findings that Weathers failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
with regard to his discovery requests are supported by the record. The court gave
Weathers sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing sanctions
and acted well within its inherent authority, independent of Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(B), in imposing sanctions for the discovery violations. And to the extent
that Weathers claims that the court should have considered other circumstances
demonstrating that a sanction award is unjust, those arguments were not made to
the district court in the first instance and are therefore waived. After full
consideration of Weathers’s claims, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of
the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 10-15109 Date Filed: 08/16/2011 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --