Schoggen v. Hawaii Aviation Contract Services, Inc. , 608 F. App'x 469 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BRUCE G. SCHOGGEN, No. 12-17733
Plaintiff, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00049-LEK-
BMK
IRA DENNIS HAWVER,
Appellant, MEMORANDUM*
v.
HAWAII AVIATION CONTRACT
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2015**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Ira Dennis Hawver appeals the district court’s award of sanctions and its
denial of his motion for reconsideration of that award. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sanctions for
filing a frivolous complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). See
Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-77 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that res judicata bars all of the
claims asserted in the Verified Complaint.1 The district court correctly found that
the Verified Complaint was virtually identical to the complaint filed in December
2004, alleged the same claims arising from the same set of operative facts, which
were ultimately resolved when the district court entered judgment confirming the
arbitrator’s final award upon Bruce Schoggen’s motion in 2007.
In addition, Schoggen’s attorney, Mr. Hawver, failed to conduct a
reasonable and competent investigation, which would have revealed that the claims
had been previously and conclusively adjudicated. Not only does the Verified
Complaint discuss the prior litigation between the two parties, but defense counsel
1
Schoggen did not appeal from the order dismissing the complaint and
entering judgment in favor of Hawaiian Aviation Contract Services, Inc. We
necessarily must consider, however, whether the district court correctly ruled that
res judicata bars all of the claims in the Verified Complaint to make the appropriate
inquiry under Holgate.
2
sent Mr. Hawver a twelve-page, single-spaced letter upon receipt of the complaint,
detailing the history of the precise claims at issue, the applicable hornbook
principles of res judicata, and why the complaint would subject Mr. Hawver to
Rule 11 sanctions. Mr. Hawver chose not to voluntarily dismiss the Verified
Complaint. Neither Mr. Hawver’s subjective views as to the merits of the
confirmation order, nor his attempt to present the complaint as asserting a claim of
“fraudulent misrepresentations to the arbitrator,” despite the absence of any such
allegations, justify his filing the objectively baseless Verified Complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3