Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Preposterous Federal Removal Attempt? Say Hello to Sanctions

By Robyn Hagan Cain | Last updated on

When do sanctions transcend beyond warranted to the rarefied ranks of "richly deserved"? Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook offered a little insight on that topic this week based on an attorney's botched attempt to remove an action for sanctions in a lawsuit to a federal court.

Attorney David Novoselsky, purporting to represent plaintiff MB Financial as guardian of minor Cristina Zvunca's financial interests, sued six defendants in a state court. His suit alleged, among other things, that several of the defendants had abused Zvunca.

The claim had many problems, including that fact that Tiberiu Klein, Zvunca's general guardian, had discharged Novoselsky as Zvunca's lawyer. When the defendants pointed out the suit's shortcomings, Novoselsky dismissed the complaint. The defendants then sought an award of sanctions against Novoselsky under an Illinois Supreme Court rule.

Before the state court ruled on this motion, Klein filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of requesting sanctions on Zvunca's behalf. Before the state court could rule on Klein's motion, Novoselsky filed a notice of removal to federal court.

Federal law provides that an attorney who 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 his conduct. It also authorizes an award of attorneys' fees based on unreasonable removal.

Here, a district court ordered Novoselsky to pay more than $12,000 to two of the defendants. Novoselsky appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the order, noting that "Novoselsky's removal was worse than unreasonable; it was preposterous." Here are a few reasons why Judge Easterbrook, writing for the three-judge panel, found it preposterous:

  • Only a party can initiate federal removal. A request for sanctions does not make a person a party.
  • Among parties, only a defendant can remove the suit. Novoselsky was not a defendant; he was counsel on the plaintiff's side.
  • Removal requires the consent of all defendants. Even if Novoselsky was characterized as a defendant, none of the other six defendants agreed to removal.
  • A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of a suit's commencement. Novoselsky's notice was filed long after that.

While Novoselsky's shenanigans occurred before enactment of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act, lawyers practicing under the current law can still learn from his mistakes. Follow the federal removal rules closely, or pay the price.

Related Resources:

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard