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 LEXIS 33042 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (unpublished):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

Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute on Liability of Counsel, Unlike § 1927 and Rule 11, Precludes Award

Supreme Court — Federal Arbitration Act — Inherent Power May Be Controlled or Overridden by Statute or Rule — When the District Court Compels Arbitration, It Must Stay and Cannot Dismiss The Federal Action — “Shall Means Shall”

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

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