Judge ‘Perplexed’ by Fifth Circuit Reversal of Sanctions Order

A Texas district judge is taking issue with an appellate court’s reversal of sanctions against an attorney.

US District Judge Mark Pittman, who sits in Fort Worth, last year sanctioned an attorney for opposing a motion for an extension to file an answer to a complaint. On Monday, he said in an order that he’s “perplexed” by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s opinion that tossed out the sanctions, saying the appeals court cut against other rulings it had issued in favor of federal judges in the Northern District of Texas handing down such penalties.

A 1988 en banc Northern District of Texas opinion, Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Assoc., lays out how attorneys should conduct themselves while litigating in that district.

Pittman cited a number of cases in which that court upheld sanctions issued under Dondi, noting that the appellate judges didn’t determine whether the lawyers were “on notice” of the standards, as the appeals court said was required in the opinion reversing his order.

“Rather, courts reasonably believed, just as courts do with the Rules of Professional Responsibility, or the Texas Lawyers Creed, that an individual practicing in the Northern District of Texas will abide by the rules of conduct in that forum, which necessarily include Dondi,” Pittman wrote. “Indeed, the foundational principle ignorantia juris non excusat—for ignorance of the law is no excuse—undergirds all civil and criminal law in the Western world.”

It’s rare for district judges to respond to appellate court’s rulings in a detailed opinion. The appeal of the order was uncontested before the Fifth Circuit, with only the sanctioned lawyer briefing the court.

Pittman had found that Tyler Somes was in violation of Dondi’s requirement that lawyers shouldn’t oppose requested extensions of time unless it would have a “material, adverse effect on the rights of the client.”

Somes told the judge in a declaration that he had opposed the extension request because settlement discussions were taking place in another court that could moot the Texas case, and he wanted to protect his clients and other potential class members’ right to have their claims decided “in the contractually-designated venue.”

Pittman directed Somes to pay $150 to cover opposing counsel’s costs for driving to the courthouse for a hearing. Pittman also ordered Somes to read Dondi, as well as other Texas ethical requirements and the judge’s specific requirements for litigating in his court.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the sanctions in a July 2 per curiam order from Judges Jerry Smith, Stephen Higginson, and Senior Judge W. Eugene Davis. The unsigned order found that Somes wasn’t on notice that Dondi applied to him because he was a member of the Northern District of Texas bar, and didn’t have to read it as part of a pro hac vice motion to appear in Pittman’s court.

Somes declined to comment. Lyle Cayce, clerk of court for the Fifth Circuit, said, “The court has no comment on the opinion, which speaks for itself.”

Pittman said in Monday’s order that creating a distinction between visiting lawyers and those who regularly practice in the court “would be nonsensical—why would the Northern District of Texas hold out-of-state attorneys to a higher standard than frequent practitioners?”

The trial judge said that he has taken steps to “remove all doubt” on whether Dondi applies in his court, including adding a reminder to read the opinion to his judge-specific requirements and the automated “new case” docket entry that’s created when civil actions are filed before him.

“As is true of all laws, Dondi binds those in its purview whether they have read it or not—and whether they like it or not. The panel’s opinion in this case leaves unclear whether it agrees,” Pittman said.

Pittman also took issue with the Fifth Circuit finding that Somes’s client would face a “material, adverse effect” due to the extension of time, saying he had found Somes had instead acted in his own best interest, not his client’s. “It is the province of the trial court to determine the facts,” Pittman wrote.

“With deepest respect to the Fifth Circuit, woe to the judicial branch if trial judges are prohibited from exercising their ‘power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates,’” Pittman wrote.

Wissel et al v. Rural Media Group, Inc., N.D. Tex., No. 4:24-cv-00999, Order 7/28/25