# Jemison v. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · November 5, 1998 · 720 A.2d 275

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746596

## Case

- **Full name:** T.J. JEMISON, Et Al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION, USA, INC., Et Al., Appellees; NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION, USA, INC., Et Al., Appellants, v. T.J. JEMISON, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 5, 1998
- **Citations:** 720 A.2d 275; 1998 D.C. App. LEXIS 208; 1998 WL 767711
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Reid
- **Judges:** Terry, Reid, King
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746596

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the notion that “punitive. damages could not also be awarded in addition to attorneys’ fees” and explaining that “we see no reason why a court may not award punitive damages” as a civil sanction for bad-faith litigation
- holding that the court has inherent authority to impose sanctions against a non-party for bad faith litigation

## Opinion text

REID, Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I fully support and join Judge Terry’s opinion, except for that part which imposes the sanction of punitive damages against Dr. Jemison. I agree that the factual circumstances of this matter warrant sanctions. What is most troublesome for me, however, is the use of the court’s inherent power to impose punitive damages, in addition to attorneys fees, as a sanction on a non-party.
The trial court’s order of June 26, 1995, treats Dr. Jemison as a party. At the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, Dr. Jemison was not made a party to the litigation. On October 6, 1994, the trial court inquired whether Dr. Jemison “is the appropriate party in this case.” On October 7,1994, the trial court added additional defendants to the case, but did not include the name of Dr. *289 Jemison in its order. Nor was Dr. Jemison identified as a party in plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Despite appellees’ argument that Dr. Jemison acted like a party and did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction after receiving notice that sanctions would be sought against him, I find nothing in the record showing that Dr. Jemison was ever made a party to the suit in his individual capacity. Hence, I can only regard him as a non-party.
I agree that Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 53 F.3d 225 (9th Cir.1994), which relied on Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed2d 27 (1991), supports the exercise of the court’s inherent power to award sanctions, in the form of attorneys’ fees, against a non-party for the filing of a collusive lawsuit. I also agree that Lockary v. Kayfetz, 974 F.2d 1166 (9th Cir.1992), ce rt. denied, 508 U.S. 931 , 113 S.Ct. 2397 , 124 L.Ed.2d 298 (1993), permitted sanctions, in the form of attorneys’ fees, against a non-party based on misconduct, although some of the factual circumstances differed from the case before us. 1 However, in the absence of any authority, I am unwilling to affirm the exercise of the court’s inherent power to award punitive damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees, against a non-party. The Supreme Court has reminded us that “[b]e-cause of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers, supra, 501 U.S. at 44 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 . A double award of sanctions against a non-party, based solely on the inherent power of the court, creates an awesome weapon. I am not prepared to join in the creation of such an awesome weapon at this time.
. Lockary, supra, involved a complaint "al-leg[ing] regulatory takings, substantive and procedural due process violations and equal protection violations ... [as well' as] antitrust claims” in which plaintiffs "sought damages of $30 million ($10 million trebled under the Sherman Act), and declaratory and injunctive relief.” 974 F.2d at 1168 . The magistrate appointed as special master imposed sanctions on the non-profit corporation in the amount of $136,434.50. Id. at 1169 . Because sanctions were imposed erroneously with respect to a procedural due process claim and an abstention motion, and because there were errors in the calculation of the attorneys’ fees, the matter was remanded to the district court for recalculation of the amount of the sanctions. Id. at 1179 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746596. Public record. Not legal advice.