Full opinion text
SUBSTITUTE OPINION ADELE HEDGES, Chief Justice. We overrule the motion for rehearing filed by Rahul K. Nath, M.D. in these cases. We withdraw our opinion issued May 13, 2012, and we issue the following substitute opinion in its place. These are consolidated appeals of two judgments awarding appellees Texas Children’s Hospital (“TCH”) and Baylor College of Medicine (“Baylor”) attorney’s fees as sanctions. Appellant Rahul K. Nath, M.D. challenges the sanctions awards on several grounds. In both cases, Nath asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the sanctions because (a) the sanctionable conduct was that of Nath’s attorneys, rather than Nath; (b) the motions for sanctions were filed after the trial of the case; (c) the procedural safeguards of Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code were not provided; and (d) the sanctions were excessive under the circumstances. In the Baylor appeal only, Nath brings two additional issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Baylor its attorney’s fees as sanctions because Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10 are unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the award of $644,500.16 in sanctions to Baylor violates the Excessive Fines clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We affirm. BACKGROUND Nath is a board-certified plastic surgeon specializing in surgical treatment of bra-chial plexus injuries, which are injuries to the nerves of children occurring during birth. In February 2006, Nath sued Baylor and TCH (under vicarious liability theories), and Dr. Saleh Shenaq for tortious interference with prospective business relations and defamation based on statements allegedly made by Shenaq. These allegedly defamatory statements asserted that Nath (a) was fired from Baylor, (b) performed unnecessary surgeries, (c) was unqualified, (d) was under criminal investigation, and (e) lacked professional ethics and integrity. Nath amended his petition in April 2006, adding two out-of-state defendants, reasserting the same allegations. He again amended his petition in August 2006 after the out-of-state defendants filed special exceptions, providing more details regarding their acts, but keeping the same claims against all the defendants: defamation and tortious interference. The out-of-state defendants also filed special appearances, which the trial court denied. However, these special appearances were reversed on appeal. Nath’s dispute with Shenaq was resolved by an agreed order of dismissal with prejudice. Nath amended his petition again in September 2008 to include claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligent supervision, and negligent training against Baylor and TCH only. In this petition, Nath reurged his previous defamation complaints and added that Shenaq and various other Baylor and TCH employees made false and misleading statements to the effect that Nath had left TCH without notice and had disappeared from TCH without leaving a forwarding address. Nath filed a fourth amended petition in November 2008, alleging the same claims against the same defendants. In this petition, he made the allegations detailed above, as well as alleging that further defamatory statements had been made by specific individuals employed by Baylor or TCH. Nath also detailed several specific examples of alleged tortious interference. He contended that the basis for the “defamation campaign” pursued by TCH and Baylor was dissatisfaction of doctors in the Baylor Obstetrics/Gynecology department concerning Nath’s testimony in lawsuits filed against them. He additionally alleged that TCH and Baylor were further motivated to discredit him, damage his reputation, and remove him from their facilities because Nath had discovered that even though Shenaq had become partially or completely blind in one eye after suffering a detached retina in 2003, Shenaq continued to perform surgeries. In July 2009, Nath filed his fifth amended petition against Baylor and TCH; adding claims for a declaratory judgment and seeking injunctive relief. His claims for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief were based on his allegations that he had “become increasingly concerned with the question of whether he ha[d] a duty, as a fiduciary to his current patients, to make any disclosures to them if, in fact, he confirmed that Dr. Shenaq’s eyesight [had been] impaired during these surgeries.” He further alleged that Shenaq had some type of hepatitis, which would have been “an absolute contraindication to his performing surgery.” He stated that when he had sought discovery of information to reveal when Shenaq contracted hepatitis, what form of hepatitis Shenaq had, and whether the disease was active, Baylor and TCH had blocked him from obtaining this information. He sought the following declarations: Plaintiff seeks this Court’s declaration of his rights, interests, and duties with respect to Dr. Nath’s Current Affected Patients and any other of the Eyesight Affected Patients and Possible Hepatitis Affected Patients [operated on by Dr. Shenaq] that are identified to be his current patients. Plaintiff further seeks this Court’s declaration of the duties of Baylor and TCH with respect to the Eyesight Affected Patients and Possible Hepatitis Affected Patients. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks this Court’s declaration that the information sought by Plaintiff in discovery in this lawsuit is information to which he is entitled and that is necessary for him to understand and fulfill his duties to his current patients as well as a ruling from the Court, after the information is fully disclosed, conforming the extent of disclosure that should be made to his current patients. Plaintiff further seeks this Court’s declarations as to Baylor’s and TCH’s specific duties of disclosure to the Eyesight Affected Patients and Possible Hepatitis Affected Patients as revealed by the discovery and determined by this Court. His requested injunctive relief was based on his declaratory judgment claim. In December 2009, TCH a filed a traditional and no-evidence summary-judgment motion addressing all of Nath’s claims. Baylor filed a similar motion on January 4, 2010. Nath responded to TCH’s summary-judgment motion in March 2010. An affidavit signed by Nath was attached as an exhibit to this response. In this affidavit, Nath repeats and expands upon the factual allegations underlying his fifth amended petition, as well as identifying several of the legal claims asserted in his petition. On April 1, 2010, when the motions for summary judgment were set to be argued, Nath sought recusal of the trial court judge. On April 14, 2010, Nath filed an amended petition in which he abandoned all his previous claims and substituted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). In May 2004, TCH and Baylor supplemented their summary-judgment motions to address this claim. TCH’s summary-judgment motion was granted on June 18, 2010, but its counterclaims remained pending against Nath. Baylor’s summary-judgment motion was likewise granted. TCH nonsuited its counterclaims against Nath on August 12, 2010. The trial court signed an order on August 17, 2010, stating that the previously granted summary judgments became final and ap-pealable on August 12, 2010, the date of TCH’s non-suit. On August 26, 2010, TCH filed a motion to modify the judgment to assess its attorney’s fees as sanctions against Nath pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 (“Rulel 3”) and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (“Chapter 10”): [TCH] prays that the Court grant its Motion to Modify the Judgment to Assess Fees as Sanctions Against Plaintiff Rahul K. Nath and impose monetary sanctions against Nath under Chapter 10 and/or Rule 13 based on the filing of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the defamation, tortious interference, and negligence claims, and the declaratory judgment claim. (emphasis added). The trial court heard the motion for sanctions on September 17, 2010. Without objection by Nath’s attorney, the trial court took judicial notice of the court’s file, including the motions for summary judgment, the attachments to the motions, and the motion for sanctions with attachments. Nath did not appear or present any evidence at this hearing, although he was not subpoenaed to attend. That same day, the trial court granted TCH’s motion to modify the judgment and assess fees as sanctions against Nath. The trial court specifically found that Nath’s claims were groundless, that a reasonable inquiry would have revealed that these claims were without factual basis and barred by well-settled, existing Texas law, and that they were filed in bad faith and for an improper purpose. The trial court ordered Nath to pay TCH’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $726,000, concluding that this amount adequately punished Nath and fairly compensated TCH for defending against the claims. On November 8, 2010, the trial court additionally entered lengthy findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the sanctions. These findings and conclusions are attached to this opinion in Appendix A. On September 10, 2010, the trial court severed Nath’s proceedings against Baylor from the main case, in which TCH’s motion to modify the judgment was still pending. On September 15, 2010, Nath filed a motion for new trial in the severed Baylor case. On September 21, 2010, Nath filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion for new trial in the Baylor case. On October 10, 2010, Baylor filed its own motion to modify the judgment and to assess fees as sanctions against Nath: [Baylor] prays that, after hearing, the Court grant its Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Modify the Judgment to Assess Fees as Sanctions Against Plaintiff Rahul K. Nath and impose monetary sanctions against Nath under Chapter 10 and/or Rule 13 based on the filing of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; the defamation, tortious interference, and negligence claims; and the declaratory judgment claim. (emphasis added). On November 12, 2010, Nath filed a response to Baylor’s motion to modify the judgment, alleging that Baylor’s motion was untimely, that it was improperly addressed at Nath rather than his attorneys, and that the evidence supporting the motion was legally incompetent. The trial court heard the sanctions motion on November 12, 2010. Over Nath’s objection, the trial court took judicial notice of its file. Nath neither appeared nor offered any evidence at the hearing. On November 19, 2010, the trial court signed its order and modified judgment in the Baylor case, making the same findings as it did in the TCH case, discussed above. The trial court ordered Nath to pay Baylor’s attorney’s fees in the amount of $644,500.16, concluding that this amount adequately punished Nath and fairly compensated Baylor for defending against the claims. On January 11, 2011, the trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the sanctions, which are included in Appendix A-to this opinion. Nath filed motions for new trial in both cases, which were overruled by operation of law. These appeals timely ensued thereafter. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law We review the imposition of sanctions under Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code under the same standard we review sanctions under Rule 13 — abuse of discretion. See Am. Flood Research, Inc. v. Jones, 192 S.W.3d 581, 583 (Tex.2006) (per curiam); Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex.2004). When a trial court imposes Chapter 10 or Rule 13 sanctions, the ruling should be overturned only when it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609, 614 (Tex.2007). “The degree of discretion afforded by the trial court is ... greater when sanctions are imposed for groundless pleadings than when imposed for discovery abuse.” Falk & Mayfield L.L.P. v. Molzan, 974 S.W.2d 821, 827 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). Chapter 10 provides in pertinent part: “A court that determines that a person has signed a pleading or motion in violation of Section 10.001 may impose a sanction on the person, a party represented by the person, or both.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 10.004(a). Sanctions under Chapter 10 are authorized if the evidence estab-Iishes that a pleading or motion was brought for an improper purpose. Id. § 10.001(1). Reasonable inquiry should be made by the party and attorney to ensure that the pleading is not filed to harass, delay, or increase the cost of the litigation. Id. Similarly, Rule 13 provides that, if a pleading, motion, or other paper is filed in violation of .the rule, the trial court shall impose an appropriate sanction “upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 13. Rule 13 authorizes sanctions if the evidence establishes that a pleading is either (1) groundless or brought in bad faith or (2) groundless and brought to harass. Tex.R. Civ. P. 13. Groundless “means no basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 13. B. Propriety of Sanctions Against Nath Individually In his first issue in each appeal, Nath asserts that the sanctions were improper because they were imposed against him, rather than his attorneys who were responsible for the pleadings. First, as discussed above, under either Chapter 10 or Rule 13 the trial court may sanction the person who signed the pleading, a party represented by the person, or both. Here, the trial court made specific findings and conclusions supporting both sanctions awards against Nath individually. The trial court concluded as follows regarding the sanctions awarded to TCH: In light of Nath’s bad faith and improper purposes, as set forth herein; Nath’s knowledge of the law as a former legal student; Nath’s prior conduct as a litigant in numerous cases; the expenses occurred by [TCH] as a result of the litigation and their reasonable proportion to the amount Nath sought in damages; the relative culpability of Nath, as set forth above; the minimal risk of chilling legitimate activity posed by sanctions here; Nath’s ability to pay for the damages he has caused [TCH]; the need for compensation to [TCH] as a result of the damages inflicted upon it in defending against this lawsuit; the necessity of imposing a substantial sanction to curtail Nath’s abuse of the judicial process and punish his bad faith and improper conduct; the burdens on the court system attributable to Nath’s misconduct, including his consumption of extensive judicial time and resources in prosecuting this case; and the degree to which Nath’s own behavior caused the expenses for which [TCH] seeks reimbursement, the Court concludes that [TCH] should be awarded a substantial portion of its attorney’s fees to sanction Nath for his conduct. A similar legal conclusion was entered in the Baylor case. Second, the record contains a lengthy affidavit signed by Nath, in which he repeats and expands upon the facts and claims asserted in his fifth and sixth amended petitions. He specifically references his defamation claims and suggests that he may have a duty to his patients to disclose information regarding Shenaq’s health, which is what he attempted to use the Declaratory Judgment Act to discover. The trial court considered this affidavit in determining that Nath took a personal and participatory role in the litigation. Nath changed lead attorneys during the pen-dency of the litigation, another indicator that he was actively involved in the litigation. Finally, Nath’s counsel stated that because Nath was very interested in the depositions of two doctors, his attendance at the depositions was “vital” to help direct questioning of the deponents, indicating his active involvement in the litigation. All of these factors support the trial court’s conclusion that Nath himself engaged in the offensive conduct. We are aware that we are not bound by the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Am. Flood Research, Inc., 192 S.W.3d at 583 (so holding in a discovery sanctions case). However, we have reviewed the entire record — twenty-nine volumes of clerk’s records in the TCH appeal and three volumes of clerk’s records in the Baylor appeal, as well as numerous volumes of reporter’s records from various hearings, including the hearings on the motions for sanctions. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding sufficient evidence that Nath was personally involved in the litigation and assisted in orchestrating the claims and tactics of these lawsuits. Cf. Softech Int’l, Inc. v. Diversys Learning, Inc., No. 03-07-00687-CV, 2009 WL 638203, at *6-7 (Tex.App.-Austin Mar. 13, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing sanctions against party where there was evidence that party engaged in offensive conduct). We overrule his first issue in each case. C. Timing of TCH’s and Baylor’s Motions for Sanctions In his second issue in each appeal, Nath complains that the sanctions motions were filed “too late,” ie., after trial of the case. In support of this assertion, Nath relies on cases regarding sanctions for discovery abuse. See Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Caldwell, 850 S.W.2d 167, 170 (Tex.1993) (orig. proceeding); Finlay v. Olive, 77 S.W.3d 520, 525-26 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). However, the Texas Supreme Court has upheld an award of sanctions under Chapter 10 and Rule 13 based on a motion for such sanctions filed after entry of a final judgment. Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 312 (Tex.2000) (“[A] motion made after judgment to incorporate a sanction as a part of the final judgment does propose a change to that judgment. Such a motion is, on its face, a motion to modify, correct or reform the existing judgment within the meaning of Rule 329b(g).”) Accordingly, Nath’s second issue in each case is meritless and is overruled. D. Applicability of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41 In his third issue in each appeal, Nath contends that trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay sanctions because Nath was entitled to the procedural safeguards found in Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Nath asserts that these procedural safeguards are applicable and were not afforded by the trial court in this case. We note first that Nath waived this argument regarding TCH by failing to present it to the trial court. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Sterling v. Alexander, 99 S.W.3d 793, 797 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Thus, we consider this issue in only Nath’s appeal from the judgment and sanctions order in the Baylor case and overrule issue three in the TCH appeal. In addressing this issue, we must first determine whether the safeguards of Chapter 41 are applicable in this case. Nath asserts that they are: Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Annotated section 41.001(5) defines “exemplary damages” as “any damages awarded as a penalty or by way of punishment but not for compensatory purposes.” On page 2 of its Order and Modified Final Judgment, the trial court expressly states that the award of $644,500.16 was intended both to “punish Nath” and to compensate Baylor College of Medicine. As such, the trial court’s award of $644,500.16, in part, constitutes “exemplary damages” under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Therefore, Dr. Nath was entitled to all of the procedural and substantive protections and safeguards afforded to him by the Texas Legislature in that statute. (record citations omitted). By its express terms, Chapter 41 applies to “any action in which a claimant seeks damages relating to a cause of action.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 41.002(a) (emphasis added). In turn, “ ‘[claimant’ means a party, including a plaintiff, coun-terclaimant, cross-claimant, or third-party plaintiff, seeking recovery of damages.” Id. § 41.001(1) (emphasis added). Here, Baylor was never a plaintiff, counterclaim-ant, cross-claimant, or third party plaintiff seeking damages. See id. Accordingly, Baylor is not a “claimant” under Chapter 41. Nath has provided no argument or authority to contradict the plain language of the statute, which expressly excludes Baylor from its application. Because Nath has failed to establish that Chapter 41 applies to this case, we overrule his third issue in the Baylor appeal. E. “Excessiveness” of Sanctions In his fourth issue in each appeal, Nath contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Nath to pay monetary sanctions to TCH and Baylor that were excessive under the circumstances presented. Because Nath failed to present this issue to the trial court in his case against TCH, he has not preserved this issue for our review. We therefore overrule Nath’s fourth issue in the TCH appeal. Considering this issue regarding sanctions awarded to Baylor, the Texas Supreme Court in Low set out a “nonexclusive list” of factors courts should consider in determining the amount of sanctions, including: • the good faith or bad faith of the offender; • the degree of willfulness, vindictiveness, negligence, or frivolousness involved in the offense; • the knowledge, experience, and expertise of the offender; • any prior history of sanctionable conduct on the part of the offender; • the reasonableness and necessity of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the offended person as a result of the misconduct; • the nature and extend of prejudice, apart from out-of-pocket expenses, suffered by the offended person as a result of the misconduct; • the relative culpability of client and counsel, and the impact on their privileged relationship of an inquiry into that area; • the risk of chilling the specific type of litigation involved; • the impact of the sanction on the offender, including the offender’s ability to pay a monetary sanction; • the impact of the sanction on the offended party, including the offended person’s need for compensation; • the relative magnitude of sanction necessary to achieve the goal or goals of the sanction; • the burdens on the court system attributable to the misconduct, including consumption of judicial time and incur-rence of juror fees and other court costs; and • the degree to which the offended person’s own behavior caused the expenses for which recovery is sought. Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620 & n. 5. These factors were considered by the trial court in awarding sanctions to Baylor: Nath’s bad faith and improper purposes for filing the lawsuit; Nath’s knowledge of the law as a former law student; Nath’s prior conduct as a litigant in numerous cases; the expenses incurred by Baylor as a result of the litigation and the reasonable proportion to the amount in controversy; Nath’s relative culpability; the minimal risk of chilling legitimate litigation activity posed by sanctions award; Nath’s ability to pay for the damages caused by his conduct; Baylor’s need for compensation as a result of the damages inflicted upon it in defending against Nath’s lawsuit; the necessity of imposing a substantial sanction to curtail Nath’s abuse of the judicial process and to punish his bad faith and improper conduct; the burdens on the court system attributable to Nath’s misconduct, including his consumption of extensive judicial time and resources in prosecuting this case; and the degree to which Nath’s own behavior caused the expenses for which Baylor sought reimbursement. Additionally, as discussed above, these findings are supported by the record. A trial court may assess sanctions based on cumulative conduct throughout litigation. See Falle & Mayfield L.L.P., 974 S.W.2d at 826. Finally, the trial court reviewed evidence regarding the amount of attorney’s fees attributable to Nath’s sanctionable behavior. Both Rule 13 and Chapter 10 allow for costs and attorney’s fees as a measure of sanctions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 10.004(c)(3); Tex.R. Civ. P. 13. Baylor established by affidavit evidence that it spent in excess of $674,000 in defending against Nath’s lawsuit and sought $644,500.16 as attributable to Nath’s conduct. The trial court assessed sanctions against Nath of $644,500.16, which was supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the award of sanctions to Baylor, and we overrule Nath’s fourth issue. F. Constitutionality of Rule 13 and Chapter 10 In his fifth issue in the Baylor appeal only, Nath asserts that Rule 13 and Chapter 10 are unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process clause of the federal constitution and Due Course of Law clause of the state constitution. See U.S. Const, amend. XIV § 1; Tex. Const, art. I, §§ 13, 19. Nath relies on BMW of North America v. Gore for the proposition that “[e]lementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose.” 517 U.S. 559, 574, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996). He contends that neither Rule 13 nor Chapter 10 specifically details the severity of the penalty that the trial court might impose. Rule 13 identifies (a) the conduct punishable — filing any fictitious pleading or making statements that are groundless, false, or for purposes of delay; (b) who may be sanctioned — the person who signed the pleading, a represented party, or both; and (c) the amount of possible sanctions— any sanctions available under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215. Tex.R. Civ. P. 13. In turn, Rule 215.2(b) provides that a court may order as sanctions “reasonable expenses, including attorney fees.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 215.2(b)(8). Similarly, Chapter 10 identifies (a) the punishable conduct — signing pleading or motion for improper purpose or without evidentiary support; (b) who may be sanctioned — the person signing the pleading, a represented party, or both; and (c) the amount — the amount of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code §§ 10.001, 10.002(c). Nath provides no authority holding either Rule 13 or Chapter 10 unconstitutionally vague. Both Rule 13 and Chapter 10 require notice and a hearing before sanctions may be imposed. See, e.g., Worldwide Anesthesia Assocs. Inc. v. Bryan Anesthesia, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 445, 448 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.) (stating that all due process required was notice to the appellant and an opportunity to be heard regarding sanctions); West v. Northstar Fin’l Corp., No. 02-08-00447-CV, 2010 WL 851415, at *12-13 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Mar. 11, 2010, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that trial court need only provide notice of a sanctions hearing to comport with due process). Here, Nath had notice that Baylor was seeking sanctions in a specific amount. Before awarding Baylor its attorney’s fees as sanctions, the trial court conducted a hearing on Baylor’s motion. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Nath’s constitutional rights to due process and due course of law were not violated. We overrule his fifth issue. G. Excessive Fines Clauses In issue six in the Baylor appeal only, Nath complains that the sanctions granted to Baylor violate the Excessive Fines clauses of the federal and state constitutions. See U.S. Const, amend. VIII; Tex. Const, art. I, § 13. After citing U.S. Supreme Court authority to support the contention that the Eighth Amendment may apply to sanctions, Nath’s entire argument regarding this issue is as follows: The trial court’s $600,000+ sanction against Dr. Nath, particularly when considered in conjunction with the same trial court’s $700,000+ sanction against Dr. Nath on behalf of TCH, constitutes an excessive fine. It is vastly disproportional to any criminal fine available for comparable conduct, particularly when measured by the yardstick that the conduct in question was committed by Dr. Nath’s attorneys, and not Dr. Nath himself. Nath has provided no authority that the particular sanction at issue here, i.e., the $644,500.16 in attorney’s fees awarded to Baylor as a sanction against Nath, is excessive. Although it is undoubtedly a large amount of money, it represents a portion of the attorney’s fees actually incurred by Baylor, which were, at the time Baylor filed its motion for sanctions, almost $675,000. Attorney’s fees are the “monetary guidepost of the impact of the conduct on the party seeking sanctions and the burdens on the court system.” Low, 221 S.W.3d at 620. Indeed, this court has upheld sanctions awards in the amount of three times attorney’s fees. See Falk & Mayfield, L.L.P., 974 S.W.2d 821, 823-24 (“We hold, therefore, that a trial court may, under appropriate circumstances, impose sanctions under Rule 13 in excess of the costs or expenses incurred by the defendant. Accordingly the trial court’s imposition of sanctions for three times the amount of attorney fees was not impermissible per se.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the sanctions imposed in this case do not violate the Excessive Fines clauses of the federal and state constitutions. We overrule Nath’s sixth issue. CONCLUSION In Nath’s appeal of the monetary sanctions awarded to TCH, our cause number 14-11-00034-CV, we have overruled Nath’s four issues. Similarly, in Nath’s appeal of the monetary sanctions awarded to Baylor in our cause number 14 — 11— 00127-CV, we have overruled Nath’s six issues. Having overruled all of Nath’s issues in both appeals, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. Appendix: Trial Court’s Findings & Conclusions Rahul K. Nath, M.D., Plaintiff v. Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Defendants. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with its Order and Final Judgment Granting Texas Children’s Hospital’s Motion to Modify the Judgment to Assess Fees as Sanctions Against Plaintiff Rahul K Nath, dated September 17, 2010 (hereinafter, “Motion for Sanctions”). These findings of fact and conclusions of law relate only to this Court’s resolution of Texas Children’s Hospital’s Motion for Sanctions; they do not address Texas Children’s Hospital’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment relating to the claims contained in Rahul K Nath’s Fifth Amended Petition, filed December 30, 2009, or Texas Children’s Hospital’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment relating to the claims contained in Rahul K. Nath’s Sixth Amended Petition, filed May 24, 2010. With respect to Texas Children’s Hospital’s summary judgment motions, there are no facts to find, and the legal conclusions have already been stated in the motions and responsive pleadings thereto. See, e.g., Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796, 810 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural Background 1) On February 17, 2006, Plaintiff Rahul K. Nath (“Nath”) filed an Original Petition against Baylor College of Medicine (“Baylor”), his former employer; Dr. Saleh She-naq, his former supervisor; and Texas Children’s Hospital, which operated a clinic staffed with Baylor doctors, including Nath and Dr. Shenaq, under an affiliation agreement with Baylor. The lawsuit alleged that Dr. Shenaq and other doctors and clinicians made defamatory statements about Nath that tortiously interfered with his business relations, and sought to hold Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor vicariously liable for the alleged defamatory statements. 2) Two months later, Nath filed a First Amended Petition naming Johns Hopkins University and Dr. Allan Belzberg as additional defendants, based on alleged defamatory statements Dr. Belzberg made about Nath in Dr. Belzberg’s capacity as a Johns Hopkins employee. A battle over this Court’s jurisdiction over Dr. Belzberg and Johns Hopkins ensued. 3) Nath filed a Third Amended Petition nonsuiting Dr. Belzberg and Johns Hopkins in September 2008. The Third Amended Petition also added negligent supervision and training claims against Baylor and Texas Children’s Hospital based on the same facts previously alleged. 4) Nath filed a Fifth Amended Petition on July 23, 2009. In addition to the previously-pleaded claims for defamation, tor-tious interference, and negligence, the Fifth Amended Petition alleged a new cause of action for a declaratory judgment based on alleged health problems of Dr. Shenaq. 5) There have been numerous discovery battles in this case. A partial listing is as follows. 6) On November 18, 2008, Baylor filed a Motion to Compel Oral Deposition and Written Discovery Responses against Nath. On December 10, 2008, Texas Children’s Hospital filed a Joinder to Baylor’s Motion to Compel. This Court, with The Honorable Levi Benton presiding, held a hearing on those motions on December 10, 2008. At the hearing. Judge Benton indicated that Nath would be required to provide certain information regarding his alleged damages and personal finances. 7) On March 11, 2009, Texas Children’s Hospital filed a Motion to Compel Interrogatory Responses and Production of Documents and Joint Renewed Motion to Compel Oral Deposition Responses against Nath. On April 13, 2009, Baylor filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Oral Deposition Responses and Extend Time for Nath’s Deposition. These motions again sought production of, among other things, certain financial information from Nath. This Court, with the undersigned judge presiding, held a hearing on these motions on April 17, 2009. At the hearing, and in response to the motions, Nath’s counsel nonsuited and dismissed all of Nath’s claims for damages for injury to his reputation. Nath’s counsel also nonsuited and dismissed his claims relating to the falsity of any statement alleging that there exists or has existed a criminal and/or governmental investigation of Nath. 8) On July 20, 2009, Nath, through his counsel, filed a Supplemental Motion to Compel Against Texas Children’s Hospital seeking information related to Dr. She-naq’s health, as well as medical records of some of Dr. Shenaq’s former patients. On July 23, 2009, Texas Children’s Hospital filed a Response to Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion to Compel and a Motion to Compel Oral Deposition Responses and Production of Documents and Renewed Motion to Compel Privilege Log. This Court held a hearing on this motion on July 24, 2009. 9) On December 30, 2009, Texas Children’s Hospital filed its traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment with respect to all the claims contained in the Fifth Amended Petition. Baylor filed its traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment on January 4, 2010. 10) On January 13, 2010, Nath’s counsel filed an Emergency Motion to Compel Depositions of Samuel Stal, M.D. and Larry Hollier, Jr., M.D., two Baylor employees; an Emergency Motion to Compel Production of E-Documents Against Baylor; and an Emergency Motion to Compel Discovery Responses Against Baylor College of Medicine. On January 20, 2010, Nath’s counsel filed an Emergency Verified Motion for Continuance of Defendants’ Summary Judgment Hearings and Plaintiffs Corresponding Summary Judgment Response Deadlines. The Court held a hearing on those motions on January 21, 2010. This Court granted Nath’s motion for continuance, ordered depositions of Drs. Stal and Hollier, set March 26, 2010, as the deadline for Nath to file responses to the motions for summary judgment, and set the hearing on the summary judgment motions for April 1, 2010. 11) On March 15, 2010, Nath’s counsel filed a Second Emergency Verified Motion for Continuance of Defendants’ Summary Judgment Hearings and Plaintiffs Corresponding Summary Judgment Response Deadlines. On March 19, 2010, the Court held a hearing on the motion and denied the second motion for continuance. 12) Nath’s counsel filed his responses to the motions for summary judgment on March 26, 2010. Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor filed timely replies in anticipation of the hearing. 13) Instead of arguing the merits of his response to the motions for summary judgment at the hearing set for April 1, 2010, Nath retained a new attorney, Daniel Shea, who filed a motion to recuse the undersigned judge. Per Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(d), the undersigned judge forwarded the motion for recusal to the administrative judge, who in turn assigned the Honorable Mike Engelhart to hear the motion to recuse. Judge Engel-hardt scheduled a hearing on Nath’s recu-sal motion for Monday. April 5, 2010. 14) Nath’s attorneys did not attend the scheduled April 5, 2010 hearing on the recusal motion. Instead. Nath’s counsel filed a Verified Motion to Recuse Hon. Mike Engelhart. 15) Ultimately, the hearing on the original motion to recuse occurred on April 29, 2010. The motion to recuse was denied. 16) In the interim, Nath’s counsel filed a Sixth Amended Petition on April 14, 2010, in which Nath “abandoned” all of his previous defamation, tortious interference, and negligence claims in favor of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). In response, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor drafted another round of summary judgment motions addressing the new claim. Nath’s counsel filed no written responses to these motions, and instead chose to object to the notice of hearing based on a technical argument that Defendants’ notice was improper because it was electronically signed (despite the fact that the rules specifically permit electronic signatures). 17) On June 18, 2010, this Court heard argument on, and granted, all of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Counsel for all parties were present. This Court dismissed all of the claims asserted against Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor in Plaintiffs Fifth and Sixth Amended Petitions. 18) On August 12, 2010, Texas Children’s Hospital nonsuited its claims against Nath for statutory attorney’s fees based on the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Section 37.009 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code; and the Texas Medical Practice Act, Section 160.008(c) of the Texas Occupations Code. 19) On August 26, 2010, Texas Children’s Hospital filed a Motion to Modify the Judgment to Assess Fees As Sanctions Against Plaintiff Rahul K. Nath. Nath retained another new attorney. Susan Norman, who wrote to the Court on August 21, 2010 asking for additional time so that another new attorney retained by Nath, Scott Rothenberg, could review the file in order to determine the time frame for completing a response to the motion. On September 3, 2010. Nath’s counsel filed Special Exceptions to the Motion for Sanctions. Both parties noticed hearings on these matters for September 17, 2010. 20) On September 17, 2010, the Court held a hearing with counsel for Nath and Texas Children’s Hospital in attendance. The Court first heard argument on Nath’s Special Exceptions to Texas Children’s Hospital’s Motion for Sanctions, and overruled the Special Exceptions. The Court then heard argument on Texas Children’s Hospital’s Motion for Sanctions. The Court granted sanctions for the reasons set forth herein. Relevant Factual Background to the Litigation 21) The underlying litigation arose out of a dispute primarily between Nath and Baylor, his former employer. Nath started his employment with Baylor in 1996 as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery. In 1997, Baylor granted Nath a joint primary appointment in the Departments of Surgery and Neurosurgery. During his time at Baylor, Nath was accountable to and reported to Dr. Shenaq, the Chief of Baylor College of Medicine’s Division of Plastic Surgery. 22) It is undisputed that Nath was never an employee of Texas Children’s Hospital. Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor are two separate entities, though the two have been affiliated since at least 1962. Though not an employee of Texas Children’s Hospital, like hundreds of other doctors, Nath was granted privileges to see patients and operate on patients at Texas Children’s Hospital. Much of Nath’s practice at Texas Children’s Hospital took place in the Brachial Plexus Clinic (the “Clinic”), where patients were treated twice weekly by an interdisciplinary team of Baylor doctors. 23) In 1996, the Baylor doctors staffing the Clinic included Dr. Rita Lee (a neurologist and the appointed chief of the Clinic); Dr. Shenaq (head of plastic surgery at the Clinic); Nath (as a member of the plastic surgery team); Dr. John Laurent (the primary neurosurgeon for the Clinic); and Dr. Aloysia Schwabe (a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician). The staff at the Clinic also included Lisa Thompson, a Baylor employee, and Lisa Davis, a Texas Children’s Hospital employee. 24) Dr. Shenaq and Nath contracted with the Pediatric Consultants of the Department of Pediatrics. Baylor College of Medicine, to collect patient fees related to their practice at the Clinic. After 15% of the collections were distributed to Baylor and the Department of Pediatries at Baylor, the remaining 85% was split equally between Dr. Shenaq and Nath as partners. None of these fees were divided or shared with Texas Children’s Hospital. 25) Starting in late 2003, Nath’s relationships with his fellow doctors and clinical workers began to sour. A number of doctors lodged complaints about Nath, including Dr. Lee and Dr. Gurpreet Dhillon, Dr. Arturo Armenia, and others. Those complaints are detailed in the pleadings and other papers filed in this case. 26) In June, the conflicts among Nath and other Baylor physicians came to a head. On June 2, 2004. Dr. Brunicardi and Dr. Robert Grossman, Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery, sent a letter to Nath notifying him of Baylor’s decision not to renew his appointments in the Departments of Surgery and Neurosurgery. Accordingly, the letter informed Nath that his last day of employment with Baylor would be June 30, 2004. Although Baylor had a policy setting forth a procedure for non-tenured faculty to complain of grievances. Nath did not file a grievance. 27) In response to his termination. Nath engaged the services of an attorney to communicate with Baylor on his behalf. On June 8, 2004, David Bond, as attorney for Nath, sent a letter to the Deputy General Counsel for Baylor. In the letter, Nath — through Mr. Bond — complained that Dr. Shenaq had told Nath’s colleagues that “Nath had been terminated for misconduct.” One week later, in another letter from Mr. Bond, Nath complained generally about “disparaging” remarks by Dr. Shenaq; surgery scheduling practices; and a message on an online message board allegedly posted by Dr. Lee. 28) In June/July 2004 Nath incorporated the Texas Nerve and Paralysis Institute, where he continued to practice his brachial plexus subspecialty. 29) In April 2004, in the wake of the complaints of Dr. Lee, Dr. Armenta, and others, a subcommittee of the Medical Executive Committee of Texas Children’s Hospital commenced a confidential and privileged peer review of the Clinic. Then, in late 2004. Baylor suffered a loss in the deaths of two brachial plexus physicians, Drs. Lee and Laurent. 30) In light of these losses and the information ascertained in the confidential investigation, Dr. Feigin explained in a letter dated December 13, 2004, that the Clinic operations would be “suspended until TCH [could] ensure the availability of a team of pediatric subspecialists to provide a thorough, multidisciplinary review for all Clinic patients.” The Clinic has not reopened since. In the interim, both Drs. Shenaq and Feigin passed away. 31) In contrast, Nath’s private medical practice flourished. Nath admitted he performed at least 800 to 900 surgeries in the four years between the opening of his private practice in July 2004 and his deposition in September 2008. Nath’s accountant has represented that Nath earned taxable income “in the low to mid seven figure range” in 2004, 2005, and 2006, income sufficient to enable him to purchase a home costing in excess of $8 million in Houston’s Shadyside neighborhood. Nath’s former office manager, Brenda DeVaul, testified that by November of 2006, Nath had taken in gross receipts of $6 million for the year. According to Ms. DeVaul, Nath bragged that “There’s no other doctor[] in the world, one doctor in a practice, that would make $6 million ... in a year.” 32) Although the Brachial Plexus Clinic was closed and a moratorium was placed on all surgeries related to brachial plexus injuries, Dr. Nath retained his privileges to practice at Texas Children’s Hospital. 33) In June 2009, as part of its credentialing process, Texas Children’s Hospital learned that Nath was actively being investigated by the Texas Medical Board, and that the board’s Executive Director had assigned staff authorized to pursue legal action against Nath. On June 11, 2009. Texas Children’s Hospital requested additional information from Nath related to these Texas Medical Board investigations, as well as copies of any documents he may have received from the board. In response, Nath resigned his privileges at Texas Children’s Hospital and refused to provide additional information about the Texas Medical Board investigations. 34)On August 28, 2009, the Texas Medical Board filed a public complaint about Nath seeking revocation of his medical license. The complaint alleges that Nath ordered MRI scans of twenty children during the period 2002 through 2005. The Texas Medical Board claims that, despite the poor quality of these images, Nath inappropriately billed the patients for performing and/or interpreting the MRI exams, creating MRI reports that were inaccurate and describing pathology that could not possibly be seen. In addition, the complaint alleges that Nath performed unproven procedures and charged excessive fees — in one instance, $25,500 for a 17-minute procedure (amounting to a rate of $1,500 per minute). Nath has since filed suit against two members of the Texas Medical Board, alleging that the board’s adherence to statutory procedures violates his constitutional rights. The Sanctions Hearing and the Court’s Judicial Notice of the Case File 35) Texas Children’s Hospital noticed a hearing on the Motion for Sanctions on September 9, 2010, and faxed the notice to Mr. Shea. 36) As discussed above, the Court held an oral hearing on the Motion for Sanctions on September 17, 2010. 37) At the September 17, 2010 hearing, the Court took judicial notice of the entire file in this case, without objection from Nath’s counsel. As a result of the judicial notice, the entire case file, including all pleadings, hearing transcripts, filings, motions, responses, replies, and exhibits and attachments thereto, were considered in connection with the Motion for Sanctions. 38) At the September 17, 2010 hearing, Nath’s counsel was presented with the opportunity to rebut the evidence in the case file about his conduct and motives throughout this litigation. His counsel declined to present any rebuttal evidence. Nath did not provide any testimony regarding his good faith. As a result, the evidence of Nath’s bad faith conduct was unrebutted. 39) The Court finds that, as set forth below, all the evidence necessary to sanction Nath is before the Court. In support of the Motion for Sanctions and Texas Children’s Hospital’s Response to the Special Exceptions. Texas Children’s Hospital cited to at least fifteen filings in this case, three transcripts from hearings in this case, at least four exhibits, and two depositions, including at least seventeen references to Volumes 1 and 11 of Nath’s deposition. Sanctions against Nath are further supported by his affidavit, of which the Court has taken judicial notice, for the reasons set forth below. Finally, the Court has witnessed much of this behavior firsthand. The assessment of sanctions is based on Nath’s improper purposes in filing the pleadings in this case; the lack of any factual predicate for his claims, as previously established by the Court’s orders granting the motions for summary judgment; and the bad faith that his actions manifest. The Court Repeatedly Made It Clear that Nath Had No Standing or Grounds to Assert Issues Related to Dr. Shenaq’s Health, Yet Nath Continued In Bad Faith to Press these Issues for Personal Financial Gain, an Improper Purpose 40) On several occasions, Nath, through his counsel, sought privileged and confidential information about Dr. Shenaq’s health and the medical records of Dr. She-naq’s former patients. Nath’s counsel claimed that Nath had a fiduciary duty to those patients to discover who they were, to discovery whether Dr. Shenaq had health issues, and to inform them of Dr. Shenaq’s alleged health issues, if they existed. Nath’s counsel also tried to tie these discovery requests to his claim for declaratory judgment based on statutory duties to report medical misconduct to the Texas Medical Board. As set forth below, this Court repeatedly indicated that Dr. Shenaq’s health was irrelevant to this lawsuit, and that issues related to Dr. She-naq’s health and the identity of his patients were best adjudicated before the Texas Medical Board in proceedings designed to protect the confidentiality of patient medical records. 41) Nath’s bad faith and improper purpose in seeking Dr. Shenaq’s health information and the medical records of his former patients is clear. On June 26, 2009, the eve of a mediation in this case, Nath sent a letter threatening Texas Children’s Hospital with the consequences of failing to settle his claims: In the event that Dr. Shenaq did indeed have chronic active hepatitis B or a similar form of hepatitis, this would have been an absolute contraindication to his performing surgery. If this is the case, the sheer number of potentially affected patients would be substantial, given Dr. Shenaq’s numerous years at Baylor and TCH. Moreover, the risks to each of these patients would be dire and would most certainly require prompt actions to notify patients so that they can undergo immediate testing and obtain legal counsel to advise them of their rights. In summary, Dr. Nath is quite anxious to not only give his testimony but also to move forward with the entire discovery process (including numerous depositions) so that the truth can be made known. Dr. Nath also looks forward to confirming that all of the patients (and their parents, if they are minors) that may have been affected by the improper conduct described above have been notified so that they may have the opportunity to obtain the necessary medical testing and treatment as well as to determine what legal actions may be available to them or their children. It is clear to the Court from this letter, and from Nath’s conduct in seeking discovery of Dr. Shenaq’s health information, that the claims about Dr. Shenaq’s health had nothing to do with any defamation of Nath, or any concern for Nath’s fiduciary or statutory duties. The purpose of the discovery was to leverage a settlement. 42)At the July 24, 2009 hearing on one of Nath’s motions to compel, in response to the suggestion that the Court should order production of information identifying Dr. Shenaq’s former patients so that Nath could inform the patients of Dr. Shenaq’s alleged health problems, this Court stated: I can’t do that. You can’t do that. The State Medical Board could do that. Hospital Board, someone else. Somebody that’s not here can do that.... You should be before some other board that has a different authority than me. It shouldn’t be used as a tool in your litigation.... I’m wondering why you’re asking me to uncover [Dr. Shenaq’s alleged health issues and patients allegedly at risk] instead of the State Medical Board. That’s my big issue with your approach to it.... You’re coming to me asking me to blow open this cover. When .there is an agency out there that is well situated to deal with all of the [privilege] issues that you are raising .... This Court also pointed out that Nath could find out directly from his own patients if they had seen Dr. Shenaq. 43) At a hearing on another of Nath’s motions to compel on January 21, 2010, this Court stated, in response to Nath’s attorney’s request for information that related to Dr. Shenaq’s health: I think — I answered that by saying Dr. Shenaq’s condition is not in this suit.... I think I was very clear about it last time. If I wasn’t, I want to be clear now.... And I think you’re misunderstanding what I ruled last time, and that’s why I want to reiterate.... I said it’s not relevant to this lawsuit. ... It’s irrelevant to your lawsuit so it’s not your job to do it. Your doctor has an obligation to report it to his medical board and they have a job to do. We don’t. 44) Despite these rulings, Nath continued to seek information regarding Dr. She-naq’s health. For example, with Nath present, Nath’s counsel repeatedly sought to ask Dr. Samuel Stal about Dr. Shenaq’s alleged health issues during Dr. Stal’s deposition. It appears that Nath was also interested in obtaining information about Dr. Shenaq’s alleged health issues from the deposition of Dr. Larry Hollier. 45) On March 25, 2010, Nath submitted a verified affidavit in support of his response to Texas Children’s Hospital’s motion for summary judgment. In the affidavit, Nath goes to great lengths to describe Dr. She-naq’s alleged vision issue, and lists 45 patients whose surgeries he alleges may have been negatively affected by Dr. Shenaq’s eyesight. 46) Based on the Court’s observations at the hearings, Nath’s allegations and affidavit, Nath’s settlement demand, and the totality of the record, it is clear, and this Court finds as a matter of fact, that Nath was seeking to improperly use the alleged health problems of Dr. Shenaq for Nath’s own financial advantage in a case where Nath had no standing to assert claims on behalf of Dr. Shenaq’s patients and no legally cognizable basis for his own claims. Dr. Shenaq’s health, and its possible effects on Dr. Shenaq’s patients, have nothing to do with Nath and this litigation. Nath’s improper attempt to use this information as a tool to extract a financial advantage in litigation where his claims had no factual merit is bad faith conduct, and this Court finds it to be sanctionable. Nath’s Personal Involvement in the Litigation 47) Having observed the arguments of Nath’s counsel in hearings throughout the course of this litigation, reviewed the filings of his counsel, and reviewed the evidence submitted with the various filings, including Nath’s deposition and his verified affidavit submitted in response to Texas Children’s Hospital’s motion for summary judgment, this Court finds as a matter of fact that Nath has taken a personal, participatory role in this litigation. Throughout the course of this litigation, and even before suit was filed, Nath has been actively involved in prosecuting his grievances against Baylor and Texas Children’s Hospital. 48) This Court finds that Nath is knowledgeable about the law and legal issues, having previously studied the law. 49) Nath’s signed and verified affidavit, submitted in support of his Response to Texas Children’s Hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment, incorporates virtually the entire contents of his Fifth Amended Petition and expands on the theories set forth in the Petition. This document indicates that Nath fully authorized, adopted, and ratified the facts and theories set forth in his petitions and pursued by his counsel. 50) The record reflects that Nath himself was highly focused on gathering evidence of Dr. Shenaq’s alleged wrongdoing. Nath’s counsel insisted on delaying trial so that Nath could be present at the depositions of Drs. Stal and Hollier, despite his busy medical practice. According to his counsel, Nath’s attendance was “vital” to help direct questioning of the deponents. The deposition requests were based on Nath’s understanding of the probable deposition testimony. Nath’s counsel stated that “he’s been asking me for [ ] months” for the depositions of Drs. Stal and Hollier. As set forth above. Nath was interested in these depositions primarily because of the advantage he believed he could gain from whatever the deponents might say about Dr. Shenaq. 51) The Court also finds that Nath personally met with at least one witness who was an employee of Baylor to discuss the witness’s testimony. Nath’s counsel conceded at the hearing on March 19, 2010, that Nath spoke with Dr. Hollier just prior to Hollier’s deposition. While this conversation with a party represented by counsel may not, in and of itself, have been improper, it is further evidence of Nath’s personal involvement in this litigation. 52) The Court does not believe that Nath’s attorneys alone, without Nath’s knowledge, pursued the outrageous effort to use Dr. Shenaq’s medical history and former patient records as a tool to further Nath’s financial interests in this baseless litigation. Based on the record, it is obvious to the Court that Nath had a hand in the groundless and abusive litigation strategy. 53) Further, the Court finds that this case is part of a pattern in which Nath has used the court system to intimidate adversaries and to stifle dissent with baseless legal allegations. Nath has sued Dr. Belzberg and Johns Hopkins in Maryland court; his former partner in an MRI venture; and his former partner Dr. Shenaq. Nath has asserted claims in federal court in connection with the purchase of his home. Most recently. Nath sued two individuals associated with the Texas Medical Board, which is seeking to revoke his license to practice medicine. Texas Children’s Hospital’s Attorney’s Fees 54) Texas Children’s Hospital sought sanctions in the amount of $776,607.00, representing the amount of attorney’s fees it expended in retaining the law firm of Vinson & Elkins, LLP to defend it against Nath’s frivolous claims, excluding legal work related to Nath’s recusal motions and the Motion for Sanctions. Considering the extensive discovery undertaken, the numerous discovery disputes presented to the Court, the extended rounds of summary judgment briefing, the duration of time in which this case has been pending, and the amount in controversy. the Court finds that attorney’s fees in the amount of $726,000.00 are reasonable. The Relative Sensibilities of the Parties 55) The Court finds, as a matter of fact, that a large sanction is required to sufficiently punish Nath’s conduct and deter similar conduct in the future. 56) Nath’s office manager testified that Nath took in more than $6 million in 2006. This figure was corroborated by a letter from Nath’s account that indicates that from 2004 to 2007, Nath “[generated taxable income in the low to mid seven figure range” and had sufficient liquid assets in 2007 to acquire an $8 million residence. 57) The Court further finds that Texas Children’s Hospital, a non-profit organization, has incurred a substantial amount of legal fees defending against Nath’s claims in this lawsuit. The fees incurred by Texas Children’s Hospital total more than $776,607.00. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 58) While Nath has a right to petition the courts for redress of legitimate grievances, he does not have a right to bring baseless litigation in bad faith or for improper purposes. As set forth herein, Nath’s actions in this lawsuit merit that he be required to pay Texas Children’s Hospital’s attorney’s fees as a sanction for his conduct. Applicable Legal Standards 59) The court has broad discretion to award sanctions. Delgado v. Methodist Hosp., 936 S.W.2d 479, 487 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (stating that a trial court’s award of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion