## Facts

- Fifty-five Libyan citizens and residents sued the United States, the President, senior civilian and military officials, and the United Kingdom and its officials for damages arising from injuries, deaths, and property loss allegedly caused by the 1986 U.S. air strike on Libya.
- Plaintiffs alleged the United Kingdom was liable because it permitted the United States to use British air bases for the operation.
- Plaintiffs asserted claims under multiple statutes and theories, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Foreign Claims Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act, RICO, constitutional theories, and common-law claims (including asserted reliance on Libyan tort law).
- The district court dismissed all claims against all defendants.
- U.S. and U.K. defendants sought Rule 11 sanctions, arguing the suit was legally unsupported and imposed unnecessary defense costs.
- The district court declined to impose sanctions, despite finding counsel must have known the action had no chance of success, citing a policy of keeping courts accessible for suits brought as protest against government action.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal; the U.K. defendants cross-appealed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions and sought attorneys’ fees and costs, including on appeal.

## Issues

1. After finding a Rule 11 violation, may a district court decline to impose any sanction based on policy concerns about keeping courts open for “protest” litigation?
2. Whether the U.K. defendants were entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, including fees and costs incurred on appeal, based on the frivolous nature of the claims and appeal against them.

## Decision

- The court summarily affirmed the dismissal of the substantive claims by separate order.
- The court reversed the district court’s refusal to impose Rule 11 sanctions and remanded with instructions that sanctions be imposed.
- The court held that once a Rule 11 violation is found, the district court must impose some appropriate sanction; discretion lies in the form and scope of the sanction, not in whether to sanction.
- The court granted the U.K. defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal, finding the appeal against the U.K. defendants frivolous.

## Legal Principles

- When a court determines that a filing violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 because it lacks support in existing law and lacks a good-faith argument for changing the law, the court must impose an appropriate sanction.
- A district court may not refuse to impose any sanction for a found Rule 11 violation based on generalized policy preferences for allowing litigation as political protest.
- The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides the exclusive basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in U.S. courts; claims clearly barred by FSIA-based immunity may support a finding of frivolousness for sanctions purposes.
- Attorneys’ fees and costs, including on appeal, may be awarded as part of an appropriate Rule 11 sanction where a party is forced to defend against frivolous claims.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required sanctions after a found Rule 11 violation, rejecting a policy-based refusal to sanction protest litigation, and awarded the United Kingdom attorneys’ fees and costs for defending a frivolous appeal.


Saltany v. Reagan, 886 F.2d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1989)