Kevin Daniel Quillinan v. Russell Ainsworth;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN DANIEL QUILLINAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RUSSELL AINSWORTH; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 18-16163
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00077-KAW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 19, 2019***
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Defendants appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for
sanctions in Quillinan’s civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Defendants’ request for oral
argument, set forth in their opening brief, is denied.
FILED
FEB 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16163
(“RICO”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 819
(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ motion
for sanctions because defendants failed to develop the record sufficiently to
demonstrate that sanctions were warranted. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d
1118, 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (factors to consider in determining whether to impose
sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11); De Long v. Hennessey, 912
F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors to consider in determining whether to
declare an individual a vexatious litigant and order pre-filing restrictions).
Quillinan’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --