You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Steven Mark Lasar v. Ford Motor Company, and Lawrence Sutter

Citations: 399 F.3d 1101; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3577; 2005 WL 486995Docket: 03-35093

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 3, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves Mark Lasar's products liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company following a rollover accident. The appeal concerns sanctions imposed by the district court against Ford and its attorney, Lawrence Sutter, for violating in limine orders that barred references to Lasar's alcohol consumption and lack of seatbelt use. The district court held Sutter in contempt, imposed monetary sanctions, and revoked his pro hac vice status. Ford and Sutter appealed, challenging the due process of these sanctions and the procedural adherence to local rules. The appellate court affirmed the district court's sanctions except for the permanent revocation of Sutter's pro hac vice status. The court also addressed the mootness of the appeal following a settlement between Ford and Lasar, determining that some sanctions claims remained relevant. The court found that the monetary sanctions were compensatory and civil, not necessitating criminal procedural safeguards. Ultimately, the district court's decisions were largely upheld, affirming the sanctions based on Sutter's bad faith actions, while reversing the lifetime pro hac vice ban due to inadequate notice.

Legal Issues Addressed

Characterization of Monetary Sanctions

Application: Monetary sanctions were deemed compensatory and civil, not requiring criminal procedural protections.

Reasoning: The monetary sanction imposed on Sutter, although exceeding this threshold, was deemed compensatory rather than criminal.

Due Process in Sanctions and Contempt Proceedings

Application: The court evaluated due process claims regarding the imposition of sanctions and contempt, affirming that adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard were provided.

Reasoning: The district court found that due process was satisfied in sanctioning Sutter, as he received notice and an opportunity to be heard before the imposition of sanctions.

Mootness of Appeal Post-Settlement

Application: Despite a settlement between Ford and Lasar, the appellate court determined that certain claims related to sanctions remained justiciable.

Reasoning: Although the district court stated that the appeal by Ford and its counsel was unaffected, the settlement and dismissal created a situation where no live controversy existed regarding the $61,397.50 in sanctions paid to Lasar.

Revocation of Pro Hac Vice Status

Application: Sutter's pro hac vice status was revoked due to his violations of court orders and dishonesty during the proceedings.

Reasoning: Sutter's pro hac vice status was revoked, barring him from future appearances in the Missoula Division of the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

Sanctions for Violation of In Limine Orders

Application: The court imposed sanctions on Ford and its counsel for violating pretrial in limine orders by referencing prohibited evidence during trial.

Reasoning: The court found Sutter in contempt for these violations, ordered sanctions to compensate Lasar for unnecessary expenses and attorney's fees, and for the costs of jury empanelment.