## Facts

- Fifty-five Libyan citizens sued U.S. officials and the United Kingdom in federal district court for damages allegedly resulting from the 1986 U.S. air strike on Libya.
- The district court dismissed the action; the D.C. Circuit affirmed on the merits in earlier proceedings.
- Defendants sought Rule 11 sanctions in the district court; the district judge initially denied sanctions, characterizing the suit as “audacious” rather than frivolous.
- In the first appeal, the D.C. Circuit treated the district court’s statements as a finding of a Rule 11 violation, directed that sanctions be imposed on remand, and awarded the United Kingdom attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for a frivolous appeal.
- On remand, the district court imposed monetary sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel, including attorneys’ fees payable to the United Kingdom.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel appealed the sanction order, challenging both the Rule 11 sanctions and the Rule 38 fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred counsel from challenging sanctions previously directed and awarded in the earlier appeal.
2. Whether *Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.* constituted an intervening change in law permitting reconsideration of the earlier determination that Rule 11 was violated and sanctions were required.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing monetary sanctions (including fees) rather than a nonmonetary sanction.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s monetary sanctions order, including attorneys’ fees payable to the United Kingdom.
- The court held that law of the case barred relitigation of the prior panel’s determinations regarding Rule 11 and Rule 38 sanctions.
- The court rejected the argument that *Cooter & Gell* undermined the earlier sanctions ruling, concluding it did not supply intervening law warranting departure from law of the case.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in selecting a monetary sanction after considering nonmonetary alternatives.
- Judge Wald dissented, concluding the record did not support treating the district court’s comments as a Rule 11 violation requiring sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Law of the case generally forecloses reconsideration of issues decided in an earlier appeal in the same litigation; departure is permitted only with substantially different evidence, an intervening change in law, or clear error causing manifest injustice.
- Once a court finds a Rule 11 violation, a sanction must be imposed; however, the type and amount of sanction are committed to the district court’s discretion.
- A prior appellate award of fees and costs for a frivolous appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 is not subject to collateral reargument in a later appeal absent an accepted basis to depart from law of the case.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld monetary sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel because the earlier appeal had already resolved that Rule 11 sanctions were required and Rule 38 fees were warranted, no intervening authority justified reopening those rulings, and the district court reasonably exercised its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions rather than a nonmonetary alternative.


Saltany v. Bush, 960 F.2d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1992)