Tina Diamos v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TINA DIAMOS,
Plaintiff,
and
ALDON LOUIS BOLANOS, former
attorney for plaintiff Tina Diamos,
Appellant,
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15591
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-04997-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 26, 2017***
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-15591
Aldon Louis Bolanos, a former attorney who represented plaintiff Tina
Diamos, appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing sanctions on
Bolanos. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 859 (9th
Cir. 2014) (discovery sanctions); Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib.
Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1218 (9th Cir. 2010) (sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Bolanos in the
amount of attorney’s fees and costs associated with cancelled depositions because
Bolanos scheduled the depositions for dates when he knew he would be suspended
from the practice of law and failed to disclose his suspension to the district court
and opposing counsel in a timely manner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (explaining that
an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs,
expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct”); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2) (“The court may impose an appropriate sanction--including the
reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party--on a person who
impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.”); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(b) (authorizing sanctions for failure to comply with court order); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(d) (authorizing sanctions for failure to appear at deposition).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-15591
The court’s May 12, 2017 order to show cause (Docket Entry No. 19) is
discharged.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --