Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda

Background

Sabir Al-Mansur challenged Alameda County’s property taxes and late penalties on real property and alleged that the County and county employees violated his rights by declining to accept less than the full amount owed. He asserted multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including claims involving takings, due process, and equal protection.

The complaint contained 509 paragraphs, 20 legal claims, and 16 exhibits. During the case, Al-Mansur filed numerous motions and other papers, including motions concerning counsel, a preliminary injunction, motions in limine, requests for judicial notice, and later filings after the case had been closed. The court orally denied his motion to disqualify counsel and his motion for a preliminary injunction on November 26, 2024. Al-Mansur voluntarily dismissed the action that same day before the defendants filed a responsive pleading.

Motions and jurisdiction

The defendants sought attorney’s fees as sanctions under the court’s inherent authority, the two-dismissal rule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Al-Mansur argued that the fee motion was untimely because it was filed 52 days after the voluntary dismissal and that the court no longer had jurisdiction over the closed case.

The court held that the ordinary deadline for some attorney’s-fee motions did not bar a motion seeking sanctions under Rule 11 or Section 1927. It also held that a federal district court retains authority to decide collateral matters—issues separate from the merits, such as sanctions and attorney’s fees—even after a voluntary dismissal. The court therefore overruled Al-Mansur’s jurisdictional objection.

Sanctions ruling

The court found that Al-Mansur’s repetitive and procedurally defective filings unnecessarily burdened the court and required responses from the defendants. It also found that he advanced theories in the federal case that were materially similar to theories raised in an earlier state-court case, giving him little legal basis for expecting a different result. The court found bad faith, or conduct tantamount to bad faith, based on recklessness combined with an intent to harass.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions under Rule 11. Rule 11 permits sanctions for filings that are frivolous, legally unreasonable, factually unsupported, or submitted for an improper purpose. The court also granted the motion under Section 1927, which permits sanctions when a litigant unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies proceedings, and under the court’s inherent power to sanction abuse of the judicial process.

Attorney’s-fee amount

The court calculated the award using the lodestar method, multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. It used rates of $260 per hour for Peter J. Van Zandt and $240 per hour for Kellen Crowe, rather than the higher rates initially requested. The court found reasonable 28.50 hours for Van Zandt and 6.90 hours for Crowe, but reduced one block-billed entry by 20 percent.

The resulting award was $8,551.20. The court stated that the award was limited to fees necessary to defend against Al-Mansur’s litigation conduct and found the amount appropriate to deter additional vexatious, redundant, and procedurally improper filings. The court ordered Sabir Al-Mansur to pay $8,551.20 to the County of Alameda. Although the order identifies Al-Mansur’s motion to strike as one of the two pending motions, the conclusion expressly states the disposition of the defendants’ sanctions motion and does not separately state a disposition of the motion to strike.