## Facts

- Harry Christian, represented by attorney James Hicks, filed a federal copyright infringement action alleging Mattel’s Barbie dolls copied Christian’s “Claudene” doll sculpture.
- The district court found that a reasonable pre-filing inquiry would have shown infringement was impossible because the accused Mattel dolls were created before the Claudene doll.
- The district court also noted the accused dolls bore visible copyright notices, which should have alerted counsel to authorship and timing.
- Mattel obtained summary judgment on the infringement claim.
- After summary judgment, the district court imposed personal sanctions on Hicks under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, ordering him to pay $501,565 in Mattel’s attorneys’ fees.
- In explaining sanctions, the district court referenced both the alleged lack of factual basis for the complaint and Hicks’s litigation conduct (including conduct during discovery and past misconduct).
- Hicks appealed only the Rule 11 sanctions order.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding the complaint frivolous under Rule 11 for lack of a reasonable pre-filing factual inquiry.
2. Whether the district court improperly based Rule 11 sanctions, in whole or part, on attorney conduct occurring outside signed pleadings, motions, or other papers submitted to the court.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the complaint was frivolous because the accused dolls predated the plaintiff’s work and the factual theory of copying lacked an adequate basis.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the Rule 11 sanctions award and remanded because it could not determine whether the district court relied on non-filing conduct (e.g., discovery behavior, oral argument conduct, meetings, deposition conduct, and litigation history) in imposing Rule 11 sanctions.
- The Ninth Circuit required the district court on remand to confine any Rule 11 sanction to violations tied to signed filings and to articulate the basis and amount accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11 requires attorneys to conduct a reasonable inquiry and to certify that pleadings and other papers have factual and legal support.
- A complaint may be sanctionable under Rule 11 when, after reasonable inquiry, the factual theory is objectively untenable (including where undisputed chronology makes alleged copying impossible).
- Rule 11 sanctions are limited to misconduct regarding signed pleadings, motions, and other filings; it does not authorize sanctions for other litigation misconduct occurring outside those papers.
- When imposing monetary sanctions under Rule 11, a court must identify the sanctionable paper(s) and tie the amount to fees and costs caused by the Rule 11 violation, rather than to general litigation behavior or prior misconduct.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit agreed the complaint was frivolous under Rule 11 but vacated and remanded the sanctions award because the district court’s rationale did not clearly confine the sanction to filing-related misconduct within Rule 11’s scope.


Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002)