Rule 11 Sanctions Are Generally Reserved for Rare and Exceptional Cases (Good Quote)

 Eurosesmillas, S.A. v. Uttarwar, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25578 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020) (unpublished):

MEMORANDUM*

 Eurosesmillas, S.A. v. Uttarwar, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25578 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020) (unpublished):

Mohan Uttarwar and Piyush Gupta appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's decision regarding Rule 11 sanctions. Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2005). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

An attorney may be subject to Rule 11 sanctions if he or she files a pleading that is frivolous or presented for an improper purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1)-(2); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 675-76. Here, the district court concluded that [*2]  sanctions were unwarranted because the Third Party Complaint was not frivolous or brought for an improper purpose. This decision was within the district court's broad discretion in such matters. See Holgate, 425 F.3d at 675; see also Operating Eng'rs Pension Tr. v. A-C Co., 859 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that Rule 11 sanctions are generally reserved for "rare and exceptional" cases).

AFFIRMED.

 


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Share this article:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email

Recent Posts

Archives