No. 24A_____
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`J. CORY CORDOVA
`Christine M. Mire, Attorney/Applicant,
`v.
`LOUISIANA STATE UNIVRSITY AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL COLLEGE BOARD OF
`SUPERVISORS, KAREN CURRY, M.D., KRISTI ANDERSON, LAFAYETTE GENERAL
`MEDICAL CENTER, INCORPORATED, LAFAYETTE GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM,
`INCORPORATED, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL & CLINICS, INCORPORATED, NICHOLAS
`SELLS, M.D.,
`Respondents.
`
`APPENDIX EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR STAY
`
` APRIL 19, 2024
`
`

`

`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Lower Federal Court Rulings:
`
`U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Rulings
`
`Denial Motion to Recall Mandate and Stay
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 11, 2024) ………………………………….……………..………App. 1
`
`Judgment/Mandate
`(Affirmed Rule 11/Remanded Rule 38 Applicant)
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (January 31, 2024) …………………………….………………………App. 3
`
`Opinion
`(Affirmed Rule 11/Remanded Rule 38 Applicant)
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (January 31, 2024) …………………………….………………………App. 5
`
`Unpublished Per Curiam Decision
`(Affirmed Rule 60b, Remanded Rule 38 Plaintiff,
`Denial Motion to Disqualify, Denial Motion for Sanctions)
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case Nos. 22-30548, 22-30732 (April 17, 2023) …………………………………………App. 19
`
`U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana Rulings
`
`Electronic Order
`(Setting Deadline Rule 38 Sanctions against Applicant)
`Exhibit 10: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (February 22, 2024) ……………………App. 609
`
`Judgment – Denial Motion to Dismiss/Lack of personal jurisdiction
`Exhibit 8: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (January 12, 2024) ……………………App. 386
`
`Memorandum Ruling Motion to Dismiss/Lack of personal jurisdiction
`Exhibit 8: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (January 12, 2024) ……………………App. 380
`
`Memorandum Order Rule 38 award against Plaintiff
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (June 29, 2023) …………………………App. 27
`
`Order awarding attorney’s fees/costs Rule 11 against Applicant
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV1027 (April 13, 2023) …………………………App. 30
`
`Memorandum Order granting Rule 11 Sanctions against Applicant
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (February 27, 2023) ……….……………App. 32
`
`Memorandum Ruling Denying Motion to Vacate pursuant to Rule 60(b)
`and Granting Rule 11 Sanctions to the LSU Defendants
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No. 6:19-CV-1027 (August 23, 2022) …………...……………App. 48
`
`Lower Federal Court Filings:
`
`U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Filings
`
`Appellant’s Opposed Motion to Recall Mandate and Stay Proceedings
`With Exhibits 1-15 attached
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….……………..………App. 66
`
`U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana Filings
`
`Statement of No Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`Exhibit 15: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (March 5, 2024) …………………...……App. 616
`
`Second Motion to Withdraw
`Exhibit 1: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (February 6, 2024) ………………………App. 84
`
`Respondents’ Reply Memorandum Motion For Contempt
`Rule 38 Sanctions against Plaintiff
`Exhibit 6: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
`Lafayette Division, Docket No.: 6:19-CV-1027 (December 29, 2023) …………………App. 366
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Louisiana State Court Filings:
`
`Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals Filings
`
`Respondents’ Opposition Application for Supervisory Writ
`Exhibit 5: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`J. Cory Cordova v. Lafayette General Health System, Inc., et al.,
`Doc. No. 23-00752 (December 19, 2023) ……………………………….….……………App. 251
`
`Original Application For Writ of Supervisory Review
`On Behalf of A Non-Party/Attorney For Plaintiff
`With Attachments
`Exhibit 9: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`J. Cory Cordova v. Lafayette General Health System, Inc., et al.,
`Doc. No. 23-00752 (December 5, 2023) …………………………………………………App. 387
`
`OTHER
`
`July 18, 2023 Email
`From Respondent, attorney James Gibson to Applicant
`Exhibit 7: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….……………………App. 374
`
`December 28, 2020 Email
`From attorney, Jacque Bezou to Applicant
`Exhibit 4: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………..………App. 249
`
`March 22, 2024 Email
`From Respondents’ attorney, James Gibson to Applicant
`Exhibit 14: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………....………App. 615
`
`March 25, 2024 Email
`Response from Applicant, to Respondents’ attorney, James Gibson
`Exhibit 13: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….……………………App. 613
`
`Lindke v. Freed, 601 U. S. _____ (2024)
`Exhibit 2: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….……………..………App. 87
`
`iv
`
`

`

`LSU System Audit January 10, 2024
`Exhibit 3: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………..………App. 105
`
`February 7, 2024 Plaintiff’s Proof of Payment
`Exhibit 12: Applicant Motion to Recall Mandate
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
`Case No. 23-30335 (April 4, 2024) ………………………………….…………....………App. 611
`
`May 22, 2022, FOIA OIG Complaint ………….………...…………….…...……………App. 619
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 83-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2024
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`
`FIFTH CIRCUIT
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`
`LYLE W. CAYCE
`CLERK
`
`TEL. 504-310-7700
`600 S. MAESTRI PLACE,
`Suite 115
`NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130
`
`April 11, 2024
`
`MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW:
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`Cordova v. Univ Hosp & Clinics
`USDC No. 6:19-CV-1027
`
`Enclosed is an order entered in this case.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
`
`By: _________________________
`Monica R. Washington, Deputy Clerk
`504-310-7705
`
`Mr. James Huey Gibson
`Ms. Stacy N. Kennedy
`Ms. Christine M. Mire
`
`A 00001
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 83-2 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2024
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
` ___________
`
`No. 23-30335
` ___________
`
`J. Cory Cordova
`
`Christine M. Mire,
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`April 11, 2024
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Appellant,
`
`versus
`
`University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated;
`Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated;
`Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated,
`
`Defendants—Appellees.
` ______________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Louisiana
`USDC No. 6:19-CV-1027
` ______________________________
`
`UNPUBLISHED ORDER
`
`Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`Per Curiam:
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s motion to recall the mandate is
`
`DENIED.
`
`A 00002
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 68 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
` ___________
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`January 31, 2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`Summary Calendar
` ___________
`
`J. Cory Cordova
`
`Christine M. Mire,
`
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Appellant,
`
`versus
`
`University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated;
`Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated;
`Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated,
`
`Defendants—Appellees.
` ____________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Louisiana
`USDC No. 6:19-CV-1027
` ____________________________
`
`Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
`
` J U D G M E N T
`
`This cause was considered on the record on appeal and the briefs on
`
`file.
`
`A 00003
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 68 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`IT IS ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the
`
`District Court is AFFIRMED.
`
`We GRANT the Lafayette General Defendants’ Rule 38 motion. As
`
`before, “[w]e believe the district court is in the best position to set an
`
`appropriate sanction.” Cordova II, 2023 WL 2967893, at *3. Therefore, we
`
`REMAND for the district court to determine the appropriate sanctions,
`
`attorney fees, and costs for this appeal.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant pay to Appellees the
`
`costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court.
`
`2
`
`A 00004
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`____________
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`Fifth Circuit
`
`FILED
`January 31, 2024
`Lyle W. Cayce
`Clerk
`
`No. 23-30335
`Summary Calendar
`____________
`
`J. Cory Cordova
`
`Christine M. Mire,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Appellant,
`
`versus
`
`University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated;
`Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated;
`Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated,
`
`Defendants—Appellees.
`______________________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Louisiana
`USDC No. 6:19-CV-1027
`______________________________
`
`Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
`Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:
`
`This is the third appeal from a sanctions order entered under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). The Appellant for this appeal is the Plaintiff’s
`attorney. The district court entered sanctions against the Appellant for
`
`A 00005
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`presenting frivolous arguments regarding the Defendants’ potential liability
`as the Plaintiff’s purported employer. We AFFIRM.
`
`In this court, the Defendants filed a motion for damages, attorney fees,
`and costs. See FED. R. APP. P. 38 That motion is GRANTED, and we RE-
`MAND to calculate damages.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`We detailed the factual and procedural background of the case the last
`time it was before us. See Cordova v. La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. Bd.
`of Supervisors, No. 22-30548, 2023 WL 2967893, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)
`(“Cordova II”). We repeat only some of this history.
`
`This case arose from Dr. J. Cory Cordova’s non-renewal from a
`medical residency program run by Louisiana State University at the Lafayette
`General Hospital. Following his departure from the program, Cordova filed
`suit in state court in March 2019 against Louisiana State University, the
`program director Dr. Karen Curry, the department head Dr. Nicholas Sells,
`and the director of graduate medical education Kristi Anderson (collectively,
`“LSU Defendants”). Cordova also sued University Hospital & Clinics, Inc.,
`Lafayette General Medical Center, Inc., and Lafayette General Health
`System, Inc. (collectively, “Lafayette General Defendants”), who operated
`the hospital where Cordova was a resident. Additional defendants included
`Cordova’s former counsel, Christopher Johnston, and the Gachassin Law
`Firm, who previously represented Cordova in state court.
`
`Cordova alleged that the LSU and Lafayette General Defendants
`violated his right to due process under the federal and state constitutions by
`their non-renewal of his residency, committed a breach of contract, and
`sabotaged his efforts to apply to other residency programs. He brought his
`constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cordova contended that
`Johnston and the Gachassin Law Firm were liable under state malpractice
`
`2
`
`A 00006
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`law for failing to disclose a purported conflict of interest through their prior
`representation of the Lafayette General Defendants.
` Cordova was
`represented by Appellant, Christine M. Mire, and five attorneys from the
`Bezou Law Firm when he brought these claims.
`
`In August 2019, the LSU Defendants validly removed the case to
`federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because Cordova’s claims raised
`questions of federal law. The district court dismissed some of the claims
`without prejudice. The LSU Defendants and Lafayette General Defendants
`then moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
`
`In December 2020, the district court granted those summary
`judgment motions and amended its prior order to dismiss those claims with
`prejudice because of Cordova’s failure to amend his pleadings. With respect
`to the Lafayette General Defendants, the district court held Cordova failed
`to allege any state action or any direct act or omission that would make them
`liable under Section 1983. The district court held Cordova’s breach of
`contract claims failed because none of the Lafayette General Defendants
`were in a contractual relation with him.
`
`The LSU and Lafayette General Defendants next moved for entry of
`final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The LSU
`Defendants also filed a motion for costs and attorney fees. Five days after the
`district court ruled against him on summary judgment, Cordova moved to
`remand the case to state court, arguing that the district court’s dismissal of
`his Section 1983 claims meant that his complaint never raised a federal
`question and thus left the district court without jurisdiction. At this point,
`the five attorneys from the Bezou Law Firm withdrew as counsel for
`Cordova, leaving only Mire. The district court referred the parties’ motions
`to a magistrate judge, who recommended the court remand Cordova’s only
`remaining claims, which were for legal malpractice claims against Johnston
`
`3
`
`A 00007
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`and the Gachassin Law Firm. The district court adopted the magistrate
`judge’s report and recommendation, remanded the malpractice claims, and
`certified its rulings as final by judgment dated March 24, 2021. On April 14,
`2021, the district court issued an order denying the LSU Defendants’ motion
`for attorney fees but granting costs in the amount of $1,068.60.
`
`On April 27, 2021, Cordova appealed both orders. Because Cordova’s
`notice of appeal of the March 24 order was filed 34 days after its entry, we
`held that his appeal was untimely and that we lacked jurisdiction to review
`the district court’s dismissal on the merits. See Cordova v. La. State Univ.
`Agric. & Mech. Coll. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 21-30239, 2022 WL 1102480, at
`*2 (5th Cir. Apr. 13, 2022) (“Cordova I”). We also rejected Cordova’s
`challenge to the district court’s order awarding costs to the LSU Defendants
`because “he [did] not even attempt to press, let alone substantiate, his
`argument that the district court erred in taxing costs against him.” Id. at *1.
`Finally, we denied Cordova’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion
`for relief from judgment because he did not file such a motion in district court
`and failed to raise the issue in briefing before us. Id. at *2.
`
`In July 2022, Cordova filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the district
`court’s prior judgments, arguing the Defendants “engaged in fraud and/or
`misrepresentations” in the court’s prior proceedings. Cordova also
`contended the Lafayette General Defendants conceded that they were
`Cordova’s employers in a new state action Cordova filed after our May 2022
`mandate. Cordova further alleged the Bezou Law Firm failed to disclose a
`purported conflict of interest because counsel for the Lafayette General
`Defendants was representing the Bezou Law Firm and its attorneys in an
`
`4
`
`A 00008
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`unrelated disciplinary proceeding.1 The Defendants opposed Cordova’s
`motion and filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11(b)(1)–(3) and
`28 U.S.C. § 1927.
`
`In August 2022, the district court denied Cordova’s Rule 60(b)
`motion as untimely, finding Cordova’s allegations of misrepresentation or
`fraud and “new evidence” relating to Cordova’s employment status barred
`by Rule 60(b)’s one-year limitation period. The district court further
`determined that Cordova’s claims regarding the Bezou Law Firm were
`untimely under Rule 60(b)(6) because they were not brought within a
`“reasonable time.” Nonetheless, the district court also addressed the merits
`of Cordova’s Rule 60(b) motion. The district court explained that even if
`Cordova could show that the Lafayette General Defendants were his true
`employers and that they were contracting parties or joint actors with the LSU
`Defendants, neither showing would change the court’s prior rulings.
`Regardless of who Cordova’s employer was, the court held there was no
`breach of contract or denial of due process in the non-renewal of Cordova’s
`residency. The district court then awarded attorney fees to the LSU
`Defendants “due to plaintiff’s unreasonable attempts at continuing this
`litigation.”
`
`Cordova timely appealed the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)
`motion and the award of attorney fees to the LSU Defendants. Cordova II,
`2023 WL 2967893, at *1. We affirmed and remanded the case for the district
`court to calculate sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
`See id. at *1–3. We also denied Cordova’s motions to disqualify counsel and
`for sanctions, damages, attorney fees, and costs. Id. at *2–3. We issued our
`_____________________
`
`1 The same conflict of interest claim was first raised in briefing before us in 2021.
`See Cordova I, 2022 WL 1102480, at *2; Cordova II, 2023 WL 2967893, at *2. Cordova did
`not bring the issue to the district court’s attention until July 2022.
`
`5
`
`A 00009
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`mandate in May 2023 and the district court awarded Defendants $50,664.74
`in frivolous appeal costs.
`
`In February 2023, while Cordova’s appeal was pending, the district
`court granted the Lafayette General Defendants’ Rule 11(b) motion for
`sanctions but declined to issue sanctions under Section 1927. Similar to its
`denial of Cordova’s Rule 60(b) motion, the district court again rejected
`Cordova’s attempt to relitigate the issue of who his employer was. As it
`stated previously, “the court clearly found no merit to the breach of contract
`claims” even if the Lafayette General Defendants were Cordova’s
`employers. Thus, because the evidence Cordova and Mire persistently
`attempted to introduce and litigate would not affect the district court’s
`decision on the merits, “the futility of any arguments relating to the Lafayette
`General [D]efendants’ status as employer reflects counsel’s bad faith in
`attempting to make an issue of it.” Although the court declined to sanction
`Mire over her arguments regarding the Bezou Law Firm’s potential conflict
`of interest and the timeliness of Cordova’s Rule 60(b) motion, it found her
`“meritless arguments” on the Lafayette General Defendants’ employer
`status to be “so unfounded as to amount to violations of Rule 11(b)(1)–(3).”
`The district court therefore sanctioned Mire, but not Cordova, “to deter any
`more frivolous arguments or filings.”
`
`Following the submission of the Lafayette General Defendants’ bill of
`costs, the court awarded $29,100.00 in attorney fees and $529.70 in costs.
`Mire timely appealed.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`We review the district court’s award of attorney fees and costs for
`abuse of discretion. See Loftin v. City of Prentiss, 33 F.4th 774, 779 (5th Cir.
`2022). “A district court abuses its discretion if it (1) relies on clearly
`erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3)
`
`6
`
`A 00010
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`misapplies the law to the facts.” Id. (quoting Fessler v. Porcelana Corona de
`Mex., S.A. de C.V., 23 F.4th 408, 415 (5th Cir. 2022)). Mire argues that we
`should apply de novo review because the district court’s Rule 11 sanctions
`violate her First Amendment rights. Because we hold that this case does not
`implicate First Amendment rights and Mire’s arguments to the contrary are
`frivolous, our decision would be the same even under de novo review. Abuse
`of discretion is therefore all that is necessary.
`
`I.
`
`The district court’s imposition of sanctions
`
`Rule 11 requires attorneys certify that their papers are not filed “for
`any improper purpose” and any “claims, defenses, and other legal
`contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
`extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.”
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). In doing so, attorneys certify that they “have
`conducted a reasonable inquiry and have determined that any papers filed
`with the court are well grounded in fact, legally tenable, and not interposed
`for any improper purpose.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384,
`393 (1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted). An attorney’s conduct is
`judged under an objective standard of reasonableness governed by the
`“snapshot” rule, which focuses on the “the instant the attorney affixes his
`signature to the document.” Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc., 833
`F.3d 512, 528 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp.,
`Inc., 960 F.2d 439, 444 (5th Cir. 1992)). “[T]he central purpose of Rule 11 is
`to deter baseless filings in district court and thus . . . streamline the
`administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S.
`at 393.
`
`Much of Mire’s brief attempts to relitigate the issues of Cordova’s
`employment status and a potential conflict of interest. We previously
`explained why Mire’s arguments cannot succeed in a Rule 60(b) motion to
`
`7
`
`A 00011
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`vacate. See Cordova II, 2023 WL 2967893, at *1–2. Under the law of the case
`doctrine, “an issue of law or fact decided on appeal may not be reexamined
`either by the district court on remand or by the appellate court on a
`subsequent appeal.” Gene & Gene, LLC v. BioPay, LLC, 624 F.3d 698, 702
`(5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893, 896 (5th Cir.
`2006)). Mire does not argue that any of the exceptions to this doctrine apply,
`and she therefore forfeits any argument to the contrary. See id. (explaining
`the exceptions); Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021).
`
`In fact, Mire appears to recognize the merits of the issues she attempts
`to relitigate are irrelevant to this appeal. She acknowledges the district court
`did not impose sanctions for pressing arguments relating to a potential
`conflict of interest or for filing Cordova’s Rule 60(b) motion late. Instead,
`Mire was sanctioned for continuing to argue Cordova’s actual employer was
`the Lafayette General Defendants after the district court repeatedly
`explained why that possibility would not change the outcome of the case.
`The district court repeatedly stated that even if the Lafayette General
`Defendants employed Cordova, either solely or as joint actors with the LSU
`Defendants, or entered into agreements with Cordova directly, Cordova’s
`underlying claims still lacked merit. Sanctions were therefore imposed on
`Mire for continuing to press arguments that had clearly been rejected.
`
`Mire asserts “this appeal was filed because the district court
`overlooked the ample and unrefuted evidence . . . that the Lafayette General
`Defendants do have potential liability as employer for Dr. Cordova in this
`case.” None of this evidence, however, demonstrates the Lafayette General
`Defendants’ potential liability because the district court found there was
`nothing for them to be liable for. The time to challenge these conclusions has
`long passed.
`
`8
`
`A 00012
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`The imposition of sanctions is the only matter properly before us.
`Mire asserts the district court abused its discretion for three reasons:
`(1) Mire presented a novel argument regarding the employment relationship
`between Cordova and the Lafayette General Defendants and therefore
`sanctioning her would violate the First Amendment; (2) Mire’s sanctions
`impose a “chilling effect” on future attorneys to report attorney misconduct;
`and (3) the district court was without jurisdiction to impose sanctions or
`accept “new evidence” as to the employment relationship between Cordova
`and the Lafayette General Defendants. These arguments are frivolous.
`
`We begin with the First Amendment.2 Mire argues attorneys have a
`First Amendment right to make nonfrivolous arguments to the court and her
`arguments that the Lafayette General Defendants were Cordova’s true
`employer were not frivolous. Instead, the district court described them as
`“novel.” We agree the First Amendment covers novel, nonfrivolous
`arguments, but many frivolous arguments are also novel.3 We expect, indeed
`hope, that a large number of frivolous arguments are new, i.e., have never
`been made before. We realize a “misapplication of Rule 11 can chill counsel’s
`_____________________
`
`2 Mire’s First Amendment arguments are likely forfeited because she did not press
`them below. Rollins, 8 F.4th at 397. Mire argues to the contrary by identifying a single
`paragraph in her memorandum in opposition to sanctions. This paragraph, however, states
`general propositions about the proper role of an attorney in our judicial system. Although
`this paragraph may imply certain First Amendment arguments, “to be preserved, an
`argument must be pressed, and not merely intimated.” Stanford v. Comm’r, 152 F.3d 450,
`462 n.18 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, in the interest of finally putting
`this matter to rest, we address Mire’s First Amendment arguments.
`3 See Anderson v. Williams, No. 95-10055, 1995 WL 295914, at *1 (5th Cir. Apr. 24,
`1995) (unpublished) (presenting the novel yet frivolous argument that printing a name and
`trademark on postage is a Fourth Amendment violation); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sweeney
`Corp., 792 F.2d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for pursuing a “novel” yet
`unsupported proposition); Anderson v. Steers, Sullivan, McNamar & Rogers, 998 F.2d 495,
`596 (7th Cir. 1993) (rejecting as frivolous an argument that presented a “novel” question);
`In re Burbank, 790 F. App’x 226, 229 (1st Cir. 2019) (same).
`
`9
`
`A 00013
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`‘enthusiasm and stifle the creativity of litigants in pursing novel factual or
`legal theories,’ contrary to the intent of its framers.” Snow Ingredients, 833
`F.3d at 529 (quoting CJC Holdings, Inc. v. Wright & Lato, Inc., 989 F.2d 791,
`794 (5th Cir. 1993)). Even so, we agree with a prior panel’s conclusion that
`“there is no First Amendment exception to a Rule 11 violation.” Fuller v.
`Donahoo, No. 93-1447, 1994 WL 486931, at *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 1994)
`(unpublished); King v. Fleming, 899 F.3d 1140, 1151 n.17 (10th Cir. 2018).
`This is because, in judicial proceedings, “whatever right to ‘free speech’ an
`attorney has is extremely circumscribed. An attorney may not, by speech or
`other conduct, resist a ruling of the trial court beyond the point necessary to
`preserve a claim for appeal.” Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1071
`(1991). This serves Rule 11’s primary purpose of deterring baseless filings
`and streamlining the administration of justice. Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 393.
`
`Despite Mire’s contentions, the First Amendment is not a bar to the
`sanctions imposed in this case. Mire was not sanctioned because her novel
`arguments were frivolous, but because it was frivolous to continue to make
`the rejected novel arguments. As the district court stated, “I ruled on the
`merits in the initial summary judgment. On the 12(b)(6) I re-addressed them.
`I addressed them again in my ruling on the Rule 60B motion. I don’t change
`my position on that.” The court on three separate occasions ruled that the
`underlying claims were meritless, regardless of who employed Cordova.
`Therefore, continuing to argue who was Cordova’s actual employer would
`not change that.
`
`Accordingly, it was unreasonable for Mire to continue to press an
`issue that the district court had already decided. See Snow Ingredients, 833
`F.3d at 528. Such conduct is indeed sanctionable “either because [it was]
`made for an improper purpose regardless of its merits or because . . . even [if]
`
`10
`
`A 00014
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`made in good faith, [it was] legally indefensible.” Id. (emphasis added).4 It
`was therefore not a subjective belief that Mire’s new “statutory employer”
`theory was frivolous that led to sanctions. Instead, it was the objective view
`that it was improper for Mire to continue to attempt to relitigate an issue
`thrice rejected. See id.
`
`Mire’s second argument is that the court’s imposition of sanctions
`“will result in a chilling effect on the duty of lawyers to report
`judicial/attorney misconduct.” We are puzzled as to how this helps Mire’s
`position, as she insists in her reply brief she was not sanctioned for raising the
`issue of a potential conflict of interest. Whether aimed at reporting a
`potential conflict of interest or at her multiple other claims of professional
`and criminal misconduct, her argument lacks merit because she was not
`sanctioned for raising these issues. Because she fails to address the basis for
`the district court’s decision to impose sanctions, we need not entertain this
`argument further. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
`F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (refusing to discuss legal issues that do not
`address the grounds for the district court’s decision).
`
`Mire’s third argument is that the district court was without
`jurisdiction when it imposed sanctions because her appeal of the court’s Rule
`60(b) decision was pending. “As a general rule the effective filing of a notice
`of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals
`with respect to all matters involved in the appeal.” Thomas v. Capital Sec.
`
`_____________________
`
`4 The Lafayette General Defendants argue that Mire continues to press the issue
`of Cordova’s employer as a tactic to delay an unfavorable res judicata ruling in state court.
`Mire all but admitted to this in the Rule 60(b) motion by stating “[i]t is the pending
`exception of res judicata in state court that leaves Dr. Cordova with no choice but to file the
`foregoing motion.” Although we do not decide whether Mire’s motive was improper, her
`persistence in litigating an issue that does not change the merits lends credence to the
`Lafayette General Defendants’ claim.
`
`11
`
`A 00015
`
`

`

`Case: 23-30335 Document: 00517051719 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/31/2024
`
`No. 23-30335
`
`Servs., Inc., 812 F.2d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, an “exception is
`that . . . the district court retains jurisdiction to entertain and resolve a
`motion requesting attorney’s fees or sanctions. The basis for this exception
`is that attorney’s fees/sanctions are matters collateral