<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #93-7140 Document #89561 Filed: 12/09/1994 Page 1 of 8 UnitedÿStatesÿCourtÿofÿAppeals FORÿTHEÿDISTRICTÿOFÿCOLUMBIAÿCIRCUIT ArguedÿOctoberÿ6,ÿ1994ÿÿÿÿÿDecidedÿDecemberÿ9,ÿ1994 No.ÿ93-7140 URIÿGELLER, APPELLANT v. JAMESÿRANDI, A/K/AÿADAMÿJERSIN, A/K/AÿDONALD, A/K/AÿTRUTH'SÿBODYGUARD, A/K/AÿTHEÿAMAZINGÿRANDI, A/K/AÿRANDALLÿJAMESÿZWINGE; ÿCOMMITTEEÿFORÿTHE SCIENTIFICÿINVESTIGATIONÿOFÿCLAIMSÿOFÿTHEÿPARANORMAL, APPELLEES AppealÿfromÿtheÿUnitedÿStatesÿDistrictÿCourt forÿtheÿDistrictÿofÿColumbia 91cv01014 RichardÿW.ÿWinelander arguedÿtheÿcauseÿandÿfiledÿtheÿbriefÿforÿappellant. LeeÿLevine argued the cause for appellees. Withÿhimÿo nÿt heÿbriefÿwasÿ James E. Grossberg.ÿÿR. Darryl Cooper enteredÿanÿappearanceÿforÿappelleeÿCommitteeÿforÿtheÿScientificÿInvestigationÿof ClaimsÿofÿtheÿParanormal.ÿÿMichaelÿJ.ÿKennedy enteredÿanÿappearanceÿforÿappelleeÿJamesÿRandi. BeforeÿWALD,ÿSENTELLE,ÿandÿROGERS,ÿCircuitÿJudges. OpinionÿforÿtheÿCourtÿfiledÿbyÿCircuitÿJudge SENTELLE. SENTELLE,ÿCircuit Judge: AppellantÿUriÿGellerÿchallengesÿtheÿdistrictÿcourt'sÿawardÿof monetary sanctions under Rule 11 of the FederalÿRulesÿofÿCivilÿProcedureÿ("Ruleÿ11")ÿinÿfavorÿof appellee Committee for the Scientific Investigation ofClaims ofthe Paranormal. Gellerÿcontendsÿthat the district courtÿerredÿwhenÿitÿtreatedÿaÿmotionÿforÿRuleÿ11ÿsanctionsÿasÿconcededÿbyÿGeller under localÿrulesÿandÿthusÿawardedÿsanctions.ÿÿBecauseÿweÿholdÿthatÿtheÿdistrictÿcourtÿdidÿnotÿabuseÿit s discretionÿinÿsanctioningÿappellantÿunderÿRuleÿ11,ÿweÿaffirm. I.ÿBACKGROUND Appellant Uri Geller, a citizen of Israel and a permanent residentÿof England,ÿisÿa self-proclaimed psychic who uses his putative "powers" to accomplish such remarkableÿfeatsÿas <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #93-7140 Document #89561 Filed: 12/09/1994 Page 2 of 8 reading minds or bending spoons and suspending cable-cars in mid-air with nothing but sheer mental force. Gellerÿhasÿbuiltÿaÿcareerÿandÿreputationÿonÿattemptedÿdemonstrationsÿofÿtheseÿpsychicÿ"skills," appearingÿonÿnumerousÿtelevisionÿprograms such as "The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson"ÿand being featured in countless newspaper and magazine articles. AmongÿGeller'sÿcriticsÿisÿJamesÿRandi, an accomplished magician, author and lecturer, better knownÿasÿ"TheÿAmazingÿRandi."ÿÿRandiÿwas aÿfoundingÿmemberÿofÿtheÿCommitteeÿforÿtheÿScientificÿInvestigationÿofÿClaimsÿofÿtheÿParanormal ("CSICOP"), an organization dedicatedÿtoÿi nvestigating,ÿamongÿotherÿthings,ÿclaimsÿofÿpsychic phenomena such as those made by Geller. SinceÿGeller'sÿriseÿtoÿprominenceÿinÿtheÿearlyÿ1970's,ÿRandi hasÿsetÿaboutÿexposingÿvariousÿGellerÿfeatsÿasÿtheÿfraudulentÿtricksÿofÿaÿconfidenceÿman. In an Aprilÿ9,ÿ1991,ÿarti cleÿinÿt heÿInternational Herald Tribune, Randi discussed Geller's claimed psychicÿabilities,ÿstatingÿthatÿGellerÿ"trickedÿevenÿreputableÿscientists"ÿwithÿtricks that "are the kind that used to be on the back of cereal boxes when I was a kid. Apparentlyÿscientistsÿdon'tÿeat cornflakesÿanymore."ÿ Based solely upon these statements, Geller filedÿsuit againstÿbothÿRandiÿand CSICOP in United States District Court, alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and tortiousinterference with prospective advantage. Theÿoriginalÿcomplaintÿdidÿnotÿattributeÿanyÿspecific conductÿtoÿCSICOP;ÿÿhowever,ÿGellerÿamendedÿhisÿcomplaint to allegeÿthatÿ"DefendantÿRandiÿwas acting individually on his own behalf and/or as a duly authorized actual and/or apparent agent, servant,ÿemployeeÿand/orÿrepresentativeÿofÿtheÿDefendant,ÿCSICOP." On January 15, 1992, eight months afterÿGellerÿfiledÿsuitÿinÿdistrictÿcourt,ÿCSICOPÿfiled motions for summary judgment and Ruleÿ11ÿsanctionsÿagainst Geller. Inÿsupportÿofÿitsÿmotionÿfor sanctions, CSICOP argued that Geller could not have reasonablybelieved that his complaint was well grounded in fact or warranted by law and that the complaint was filed for purposesÿof harassing CSICOP. GellerÿrespondedÿonÿJanuaryÿ29,ÿ1992,ÿbyÿfilingÿaÿmotionÿforÿextensionÿofÿtimeÿtoÿoppose CSICOP'sÿmotionspresumablyÿinÿorderÿtoÿgiveÿGellerÿadditionalÿtimeÿforÿdiscovery.ÿÿTheÿdistrict court granted Geller's motion and ordered him to respond to CSICOP's motions by March 13, 1992. When the deadline arrived on March 13, Geller filed another motion for an extension oftime until ten days after he received a transcript of a depositionÿofÿCSICOP'sÿcorporateÿrepresentative conducted <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #93-7140 Document #89561 Filed: 12/09/1994 Page 3 of 8 thatÿday.ÿÿTheÿdistrictÿcourtÿneverÿruled on that motion. Instead,ÿattorneysÿforÿbothÿpartiesÿagreed at a later deposition attended by Geller that Geller's request for a ten-day extension of timeÿwould lapse on April 29, 1992. Gellerÿdidÿnotÿfileÿaÿresponseÿbyÿthatÿdate.ÿÿOnÿMayÿ28,ÿ1992,ÿCSICOPÿfiled a motionfor leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support ofits motions. CSICOPÿservedÿthis motionÿandÿtheÿaccompanyingÿmemorandumÿuponÿGeller,ÿwhoÿagainÿfailedÿtoÿrespond. After Geller failed to respond to either the summary judgment or sanctions motion, CSICOP movedÿonÿJuneÿ10,ÿ1992,ÿforÿexpedited consideration of both motions. Again,ÿCSICOPÿservedÿits motion upon Geller's counsel, who neither opposed it nor took any further steps with respect to the underlying motions for summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions. OnÿJulyÿ2,ÿ1992,ÿtheÿdistrictÿcourt granted all of CSICOP's motions, including the Rule 11 sanctions motion, as "unopposed." Shortly thereafter, Geller filed successive motions for reconsideration, arguing that it was "inappropriate" to respond to CSICOP's motions because the district court had not ruledÿonÿi tsÿsecondÿmotionÿfor extension of time. Theÿdistrictÿcourtÿdeniedÿbothÿmotionsÿforÿreconsideration,ÿnotingÿthatÿitsÿfailure to rule on the second motion for extension of time did not relieve Geller's counsel of the duty to file opposition within the time required by local and federal rules. Theÿdistrictÿcourtÿexplainedÿthatÿwhen Geller failed to respond to the summary judgment and sanctions motions, both motions were properly treated as conceded under D.C. Local Rule 108(b), which provides that a motion may be treated as conceded ifÿit isÿnotÿansweredÿwithinÿ11ÿdaysÿofÿtheÿdateÿofÿservice.ÿÿD.D.C.ÿR.ÿ108(b).ÿÿBecause Gellerÿhadÿnotÿadequatelyÿexplainedÿhisÿfailureÿtoÿrespond,ÿheÿwasÿnotÿentitledÿtoÿreconsideration. After denying Geller's second motion for reconsideration on July 27, 1993, the court entered judgment against Geller in the amount of$149,000, representing fees and costs incurred by CSICOP inÿdefendingÿthisÿaction.ÿÿGellerÿappealsÿfromÿthisÿentryÿofÿjudgmentÿofÿRuleÿ11ÿsanctions. II.ÿDISCUSSION A.ÿJurisdiction Although both parties correctly agree that this court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, CSICOP argues that, inÿlight of Geller'sÿpost-judgmentÿconduct,ÿweÿshouldÿdeclineÿtoÿexerciseÿthat jurisdiction. CSICOPÿassertsÿthat,ÿsinceÿentryÿofÿjudgmentÿbyÿtheÿdistrictÿcourt,ÿGellerÿhasÿneither <<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>> USCA Case #93-7140 Document #89561 Filed: 12/09/1994 Page 4 of 8 satisfied the judgment nor posted an appropriate bond, and that he hasÿsecreted his assets abroad in anÿattemptÿtoÿabuseÿjudicialÿprocesses.ÿÿConsequently,ÿbecause Geller has allegedlyÿfloutedÿjudicial authority,ÿheÿshouldÿnotÿbeÿallowedÿtoÿprosecuteÿthisÿappeal. In support of itsÿargument,ÿCSICOPÿanalogizesÿtoÿtheÿdoctrineÿofÿ"fugitiveÿdisentitlement," in which fugitive criminal defendants have been denied an appeal for failure to submit themselves to lawful criminal authorities. ÿSee Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365 (discretionary refusal by appellate court to entertain appeal of fugitive convict); InÿreÿAssetsÿof Martin, 1 F.3d 1351, 1356 (3rd Cir. 1993) ("[I]f a defendant is not willing to suffer the penalties of the crime, then an appellate court shouldÿnotÿaffordÿtheÿdefendantÿanÿopportunityÿtoÿimproveÿhisÿor her position by challenging the validity of the conviction."). Relyingÿonÿthisÿ"simpleÿprincipleÿofÿmutuality,"ÿCSICOPÿarguesÿthat this court should exercise discretion not to hear Geller's appeal because he has not satisfied the lower court'sÿsanctionsÿjudgmentÿandÿhasÿplacedÿhimselfÿandÿhisÿassetsÿbeyondÿtheÿreachÿofÿtheÿdist rict court'sÿauthority. Although CSICOP's argument appears to have at least facial appeal, weÿneedÿnotÿdecide whetherÿweÿpossessÿtheÿdiscretionÿsupposedÿbyÿCSICOP.ÿÿCSICOP'sÿargumentÿisÿnotÿtruly jurisdictional; indeed,ÿasÿbothÿpartiesÿconcede,ÿthisÿcourtÿhasÿjurisdictionÿoverÿthisÿcaseÿunderÿ28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988) (appeals from final orders of the district court). Becauseÿweÿhaveÿcrossedÿthe jurisdictional threshold, we may reachÿtheÿm eritsÿofÿthisÿdisputeÿwithoutÿconsideringÿappellee's invitationÿtoÿdeclineÿjurisdictionÿin our supposed discretion; andÿbecauseÿtheÿmeritsÿofÿthisÿcaseÿso clearly favor CSICOP, the party inviting this court to decline jurisdiction,ÿweÿneedÿnotÿdetai n ourselvesÿwithÿCSICOP'sÿinvitation,ÿandÿturnÿinsteadÿtoÿtheÿmeritsÿofÿGeller'sÿappeal. 1 B.ÿRuleÿ11ÿSanctions Although Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was revised effective December 1, 1993, the district court imposed sanctions under the pre-revision rule; thus,ÿourÿreviewÿisÿlimitedÿto ÿ1Whileÿweÿdoÿnotÿdecideÿtheÿapplicabilityÿofÿtheÿfugitiveÿdisentitlementÿdoctrineÿinÿtheÿcivil