Loop Ai Labs, Inc. v. Anna Gatti ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 9 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOOP AI LABS, INC., a Delaware No. 17-15608
corporation,
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00798-HSG
Plaintiff,
and MEMORANDUM*
VALERIA CALAFIORE HEALY, lead
counsel for plaintiff Loop AI Labs, Inc.,
Appellant,
v.
ANNA GATTI; ALMAVIVA S.P.A, an
Italian corporation; ALMAWAVE S.R.L.,
an Italian corporation; ALMAWAVE USA
INC., a California corporation; IQSYSTEM
LLC, a California limited liability company;
IQSYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
LOOP AI LABS, INC., a Delaware No. 17-15621
corporation,
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00798-HSG
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANNA GATTI; ALMAVIVA S.P.A, an
Italian corporation; ALMAWAVE S.R.L.,
an Italian corporation; ALMAWAVE USA
INC., a California corporation; IQSYSTEM
LLC, a California limited liability company;
IQSYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
LOOP AI LABS, INC., a Delaware No. 17-15743
corporation,
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00798-HSG
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALMAVIVA S.P.A, an Italian corporation;
ALMAWAVE S.R.L., an Italian
corporation; ALMAWAVE USA INC., a
California corporation,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
ANNA GATTI; IQSYSTEM LLC, a
California limited liability company;
IQSYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
LOOP AI LABS, INC., a Delaware No. 17-15784
corporation,
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00798-HSG
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
2
IQSYSTEM LLC, a California limited
liability company; IQSYSTEM, INC., a
Delaware corporation; ANNA GATTI,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
ALMAVIVA S.P.A, an Italian corporation;
ALMAWAVE S.R.L., an Italian
corporation; ALMAWAVE USA INC., a
California corporation,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 10, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: MURGUIA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,** District
Judge.
The plaintiff asserted wide-ranging commercial claims against six
defendants. The plaintiff repeatedly violated court orders on discovery and other
matters. After issuing a detailed order to show cause and considering the plaintiff’s
response, the district court dismissed the action. The order of dismissal explained
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Florida, sitting by designation.
3
the decision at length and determined, without further explanation, that each side
would bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. The order revoked the plaintiff’s
attorney’s pro hac vice status in this case and said that the district judge would not
grant any motion from the attorney to appear pro hac before him in future matters.
The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal. The defendants have appealed the
denial of costs and fees. The plaintiff’s attorney has appealed the pro hac ruling
and statement.
The dismissal was procedurally and substantively proper, not an abuse of
discretion. The plaintiff’s violations made it impossible for the defendants—all of
them—to prepare for trial. Repeated valid orders and warnings had proved
insufficient to bring about compliance. After two years of attempting to resolve the
parties’ numerous discovery disputes and the plaintiff’s disregard for its orders, the
district court acted well within its discretionary docket-management and discovery
authority by dismissing the case. See Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of
Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007).
Considering all the circumstances, including the sanction of dismissal and
the overall conduct of the litigation, requiring each party to bear its own costs and
fees was not an abuse of discretion. The absence of an explanation might otherwise
be grounds for a remand, but the district court plainly paired the decision on costs
and fees with the decision to dismiss the action. A remand for an order confirming
4
the court’s rationale would not change the result. Moreover, the defendants made
clear at oral argument that they do not seek a ruling in this court that would remand
the overall package of sanctions—potentially opening not only the cost-and-fee
issue, but also the dismissal. Further litigation that would serve no apparent
purpose is precisely what this case does not need.
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal, the appeal of the pro hac
revocation no longer matters in one sense. The case is over, and, because pro hac
status is granted for participation in a particular case, the plaintiff’s attorney’s pro
hac status would have terminated along with the end of the case regardless of any
specific ruling on the issue. The issue might therefore be considered moot.
Plaintiff’s attorney contends, however, that there is ongoing damage to her
reputation that makes the revocation a live case or controversy. Taking her
representations as true, we agree the case is not moot. We nevertheless affirm
because we are persuaded that any error here was harmless. The attorney’s
conduct that led to her pro hac revocation was all but identical to Loop-AI’s
conduct that led to the terminating sanctions, so the attorney briefed her personal
defenses in response to the order to show cause. Both in her briefing to the district
court and in this court, the attorney cites nothing that the district court failed to
consider or that she could have said to affect its decision if she had notice that pro
hac status would be considered.
5
Finally, the attorney’s challenge to the district court’s statement about future
pro hac applications is not ripe. There will be time enough in the future for the
district court to consider the attorney’s application for leave to appear, should the
occasion arise.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
6