The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-56367•Javier Tenorio Plata; v. Darbun Enterprises, Inc.;
10-56367Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 15, 2012
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER TENORIO PLATA; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
PHILIP H. STILLMAN,
Appellant,
v.
DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56367
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00044-IEG-CAB
MEMORANDUM*
JAVIER TENORIO PLATA; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
No. 10-56437
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00044-IEG-CAB
FILED
FEB 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 3 --
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
OEM SOLUTIONS, LLC; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal the grant of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the
amount awarded. Darbun cross-appeals the amount of sanctions awarded. The
district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions. United States v.
Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court applied
the correct legal standard for § 1927 sanctions. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept.,
276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002); New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869
F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Barnd v. City of Tacoma, 664 F.2d 1339, 1343
(9th Cir. 1982). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that plaintiffs’ counsel was reckless because that finding was not illogical,
implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the
record. Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its
-- 2 of 3 --
discretion finding the amount of sanctions either by awarding too much or too
little. Id.
AFFIRMED.
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.