Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Sanctions — No Abuse of Discretion Where Court Applied Correct Legal Standard and Sanction Was Is Neither Illogical, Implausible Nor without Support in the Record

Plata v. Darbun Enters., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3074 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2012):

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 discretion finding the amount of sanctions either by awarding too much or too little. Id.

Share this article:


Recent Posts