Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Even Though There Is No Safe Harbor in § 1927, Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Sanction Party Who Withdrew One Challenged Claim, and Attempted to Withdraw the Other, Before Opponent Filed Sanctions Motion

 Alcantra v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5829 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2020) (unpublished):

Defendants appeal the denial of sanctions against Plaintiff Correy Alcantra's counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The decision to impose sanctions, whether under Rule 11 or § 1927, is a matter of discretion for the district court. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990); Salstrom v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 74 F.3d 183, 185 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the record shows Alcantra's attorney withdrew the official capacity claims against the Tribal Council members and attempted to withdraw the ICRA and constructive trust claims even before Defendants filed their motion for sanctions. On these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose sanctions.

Share this article:


Recent Posts