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

Appeals: “When A District Court Lists Several Reasons For Taking A Certain Action, And One Of The Reasons Is Flawed, The District Court’s Decision Should Still Be Upheld If Other Reasons Support The Ruling” (Good Quote)

Download PDF

Baker v. Meiling, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33042 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished):

 

MEMORANDUM*

Appellants—a [*3]  proposed class of elderly investors in a metal-coatings company—appeal from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees to Appellees and sanctioning their attorney, Marc Lazo. The lone issue raised is the propriety of Lazo's sanction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing "the district court's imposition of sanctions and award of attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion," De Dios v. Int'l Realty & RC Invs., 641 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011), and its "underlying finding of bad faith" for clear error, Newtok Vill. v. Patrick, 21 F.4th 608, 615 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

The district court awarded $375,635.55 in attorneys' fees to Appellees, and it sanctioned Lazo by holding him jointly and severally liable for that amount. Lazo argues that the district court deprived him of procedural due process—and therefore abused its discretion—by sanctioning him without first providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. To be sure, "an attorney subject to discipline is entitled to procedural due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard." Pac. Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Weissman v. Quail Lodge Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 1999)). As we have held, however, "[t]he opportunity to brief the issue fully satisfies due process requirements." Id. And Lazo had such an opportunity: Appellees moved the district court to hold him personally responsible for their attorneys' fees, and [*4]  Lazo opposed that motion. Accordingly, the district court's sanction did not violate Lazo's right to procedural due process.

Lazo also challenges the district court's finding of bad faith, which was a necessary predicate to its sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir. 2015). But the district court provided at least seven justifications for its bad-faith finding, and Lazo challenges only two of them. Even if we agreed with Lazo as to the two bad-faith justifications that he challenges, the five he fails to address would suffice to support affirmance of the court's bad-faith determination. See Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., 180 F.3d 1072, 1076 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) ("We can, of course, affirm on any grounds supported by the record."); cf. United States v. Stauffer, 922 F.2d 508, 516 (9th Cir. 1990) ("When a district court lists several reasons for taking a certain action, and one of the reasons is flawed, the district court's decision should still be upheld if other reasons support the ruling."). We therefore conclude that the trial court did not commit clear error in determining the issue of bad faith, nor abuse its discretion in the imposition of sanctions and the award of attorneys' fees against Lazo.

AFFIRMED.1

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

1 Appellees pending motion for judicial notice is DENIED as moot.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

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

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