Rimon Abdou v. Marcy McCool

Summary

The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Rimon Abdou’s Rule 60 motion seeking relief from dismissal and discretionary-cost orders. The court also affirmed rulings denying Abdou’s motions to compel and to disqualify opposing counsel, as well as the disposition of the parties’ cross-motions for sanctions. The court awarded the appellees attorney’s fees for defending the frivolous appeal and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. The trial court retained subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Abdou's Rule 60 and related post-remand motions because those motions were filed after the first appeal and were not matters affirmed by dismissal of that appeal; once the mandate issued, the trial court could conduct further proceedings consistent with the appellate mandate.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60.01 or Rule 60.02 relief from the agreed order dismissing some claims with prejudice.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60 relief from Abdou's voluntary dismissals without prejudice because the record showed that the dismissals were deliberate choices and did not establish mistake, excusable neglect, or extraordinary circumstances.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60 relief from the October 2022 discretionary-cost awards.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Abdou's motion to compel because the subpoenaed former attorneys had substantially complied by producing the requested documents and Abdou did not show that further testimony or production was necessary.
6. The motion to disqualify was moot because the challenged attorney was later substituted as counsel based on his retirement from practice.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying both parties' Rule 11 sanctions motions because neither party established that the opposing motion was objectively unreasonable, filed for an improper purpose, or unsupported by law or evidence.
8. The trial court properly awarded Abdou attorney's fees and expenses incurred in opposing Appellees' Rule 11 motion because Abdou prevailed on that motion and Rule 11.03(1)(a) authorizes such an award.
9. Appellees were entitled to appellate attorney's fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-1-122 because Abdou's appeal had no reasonable chance of success, although the award was limited to fees incurred defending against Abdou's appellate issues.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Abdou's Rule 60 motion seeking relief from the partial dismissal with prejudice, the voluntary dismissals without prejudice, and the discretionary-cost awards.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Abdou's motion to compel his former counsel to comply with subpoenas.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying Abdou's motion to disqualify Appellees' counsel as a necessary witness.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Abdou's Rule 11 sanctions motion and whether Appellees were entitled to sanctions for pursuing the appeal.
5. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Abdou's post-remand Rule 60 and related motions after Abdou voluntarily dismissed his first appeal.
6. Whether Abdou was entitled to attorney's fees awarded for opposing Appellees' Rule 11 motion.

Disposition

affirmed