Fieger v Cox
Common Law Journal
January 6, 2009  
Home   Articles   Case Notes  Digest    Search    Subscribe
 

Sanctions Affirmed Against Michigan Attorney For Suing State Supreme Court Justice

Fieger v Cox

Slip Number: 07-1103

Opinion Date: 05-06-08

Jurisdiction: Federal (6th)

 

Link to Court

 

 

By CLJ Staff (May 9, 2008) - Sometime before the 2004 general election, a group identified as Citizens for Judicial Reform began airing television advertisements encouraging Michigan residents not to re-elect Justice Stephen J. Markman to the Michigan Supreme Court. Due failures to comply with state campaign finance rules, the Michigan attorney general eventually began an investigation into the group's finances which, in turn, led to an attempt to subpoena records from Geoffry Fieger and his law firm (Fieger, Fieger, Kenney, Johnson & Giroux P.C.).

Fieger is a Southfield, Michigan personal injury/criminal defense attorney. His law firm refers to itself as "The Nation's Premier Law Firm." In addition to featuring over two hours of video clips extolling Fieger's virtues and legal acumen, the law firm's web site also hosts a game titled "Playing with Fieger."

Rather than simply moving to quash the subpoena in the state district court which had issued it, Fieger and his firm sought a temporary restraining order in federal district court. When this was denied, they made another collateral attack by asking a state circuit court to stop the subpoenas. (Michigan circuit courts are trial courts with jurisdictional limits which are greater than those of the state district courts.) The circuit court granted the requested relief, which caused the attorney general to file an interlocutory appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

While the state appeal was pending, Fieger filed another federal law suit alleging that the attorney general had committed Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations in its investigation. In addition, this action also named Justice Markman as a defendant and alleged that he was part of conspiracy to injure the plaintiffs.

The federal district court concluded that the case in state court included essentially the same parties and issues and that it should abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction on grounds of comity. It also imposed Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiffs for their claims against Markman. The district court found the claims "wholly lacking in merit" and "spurred solely by plaintiffs' political and professional animus toward Markman."

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to abstain and likewise affirmed the sanctions, noting that plaintiffs' complaint against Markman was "devoid of any allegations, let alone facts, to support Markman's alleged participation in a conspiracy" against the plaintiffs.

On appeal, Fieger was represented by the "The Nation's Premier Law Firm."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is one of 13 federal circuit courts which occupy an intermediate level between the federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit is headquartered in Cincinnati and hears appeals from the district courts located within Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

 

Back to Top | More Case Notes

© 2007-8 by Ivex Network, Inc. All rights reserved. Common Law Journal is a registered trade name of iVex Network, Inc.
.