New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Rule 38 Sanctions — Timeliness — Motion Must Be Filed within Time Allotted for Attorney’s Fees Application by Local Circuit Rule (9th Cir.) — If Double Costs Sought, Bill of Costs Must Be Timely Filed under FRAP and Circuit Rule

Download PDF

In re Westwood Plaza N., 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 11176 (May 1, 2018) (amended opinion):

PER CURIAM:

The court’s October 11, 2017 order dismissed in part this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and summarily affirmed in part the district court’s post-judgment orders. Now before the court is appellees’ motion for an award of sanctions against appellant pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Appellees ask the court to impose attorney’s fees, double costs, or both on Appellant Shmuel Erde.

Rule 38 provides that “[i]f a court of appeals determines that an appeal is frivolous, it may, after a separately filed motion or notice from the court and reasonable opportunity to respond, award just damages and single or double costs to the appellee.” Rule 38 does not prescribe a time limit within which to file such a motion. This court has not specifically addressed the time limit for filing a motion seeking sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 if the motion is brought after the court issues a disposition on the merits of the appeal.

Because Rule 38 provides a basis for an award of attorney’s fees, we find that a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 should be filed within the time limits for filing a request for attorney’s fees under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6(a). See Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 854 F.3d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 2017) (award of “just damages” under Rule 38 “may include attorney’s fees incurred in defending against the frivolous issues or frivolous portions of an appeal”); Vasseli v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Vaselli) 5 F.3d 351, 353 (9th Cir. 1993) (Rule 38 empowers appellate courts to award damages, attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred by an appellee in responding to a frivolous appeal). Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6(a) provides that, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, a request for attorney’s fees shall be filed no later than 14 days after the expiration of the period within which a petition for rehearing may be filed, or within 14 days after the Court’s disposition of a timely petition for rehearing.

Applying Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6 deadlines to motions made pursuant to Rule 38 is consistent with the practice of this court, and provides a clear deadline for litigants to seek such relief in this circuit. See, e.g., In re Hunt, 238 F.3d 1098, 1101 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that fees on appeal under Rule 38 “should be sought by timely motion filed under Ninth Cir. R. 39-1.6”); In re Marquam Investment Corp., 959 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1992) (granting Rule 38 motion for sanctions filed 28 days after filing of opinion); but see Sims v. Great-West Life Assurance Co., 941 F.2d 368, 372–73 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that requests for damages for frivolous appeals pursuant to Rule 38 must be made within time limit for timely petition for rehearing under Rule 40).

*2 Appellees filed the motion for sanctions on October 26, 2017, within the time prescribed by Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6(a). Having concluded that the motion for sanctions is timely, we now turn to the merits of the motion. We have considered the motion and appellant’s opposition thereto, and grant in part the motion for sanctions. Appellant’s motion to strike the motion for sanctions is denied.

“An appeal is frivolous if the result is obvious or if the claims of error are wholly without merit.” Malhiot v. S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union, 735 F.2d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may in its discretion impose Rule 38 sanctions for a frivolous appeal against an appellant even if the appellant is proceeding pro se. See Maisano v. United States, 908 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1990) (awarding damages under Rule 38 against pro se litigant as sanction for frivolous appeal).

In the instant matter, appellant sought review of the district court’s post-judgment orders denying his various post-judgment motions, including motions for disqualification of the district judge, to void judgment, and for declaratory relief. The appeal of the district court’s orders was wholly without merit, and sought review of multiple district court orders over which this court lacked jurisdiction. Moreover, we note that the underlying district court action and burdensome post-judgment motions are part of appellant’s ongoing efforts to alter or amend a bankruptcy court order entered on October 2, 1984, dismissing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Cf. Trohimovich v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 776 F.2d 873, 875 (9th Cir. 1985) (considering prior abusive conduct of litigants in the district court in awarding sanctions) abrogated on other grounds by Nordvik v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Serv., 67 F.3d 1489, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995); Wood v. McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (imposing sanctions after reviewing appellant’s prior conduct in the district court and in filing multiple other cases). Accordingly, we exercise our discretion under Rule 38 and grant in part appellees’ sanctions motion and award attorney’s fees under Rule 38 for defending this appeal.

We refer the determination of an appropriate award of attorney’s fees as damages under Rule 38 to this court’s Appellate Commissioner, who shall conduct whatever proceedings he deems appropriate, and who shall have authority to enter an order awarding fees. See 9th Cir. R. 39.1.6. The Appellate Commissioner’s order is subject to reconsideration. Id.

Appellees did not file a timely bill of costs in this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(d); 9th Cir. R. 39-1.1. Accordingly, we deny in part the motion for sanctions under Rule 38 with respect to appellees’ request for double costs for this appeal.1

We deny in part the motion for sanctions with respect to appellees’ request for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

*3 Appellees filed the motion for sanctions both in this appeal and in a related appeal, No. 16-55374. The motion for sanctions in appeal No. 16-55374 will be addressed by separate order in that docket.

GRANTED in part; DENIED in part.

1

 

If a Rule 38 motion includes a request for an award of double costs, the bill of costs underlying that request must be filed in this court in compliance with the deadlines in Rule 39 and Circuit Rule 39-1. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(d) (bill of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment).

 

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice