Javier Plata v. Darbun Enterprises, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JAVIER TENORIO PLATA; et al., No. 10-56367
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00044-IEG-CAB
and
MEMORANDUM*
PHILIP H. STILLMAN,
Appellant,
v.
DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
JAVIER TENORIO PLATA; et al., No. 10-56437
Plaintiffs - Appellees, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00044-IEG-CAB
v.
DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
OEM SOLUTIONS, LLC; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal the grant of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the
amount awarded. Darbun cross-appeals the amount of sanctions awarded. The
district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions. United States v.
Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district court applied
the correct legal standard for § 1927 sanctions. See B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept.,
276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002); New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869
F.2d 1298, 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Barnd v. City of Tacoma, 664 F.2d 1339, 1343
(9th Cir. 1982). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that plaintiffs’ counsel was reckless because that finding was not illogical,
implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the
record. Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1262. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion finding the amount of sanctions either by awarding too much or too
little. Id.AFFIRMED.