Case ID: f-appx_468/html/0704-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Javier Tenorio PLATA; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, and Philip H. Stillman, Appellant, v. DARBUN ENTERPRISES, INC.; et al., Defendants—Appellees. Javier Tenorio Plata; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Darbun Enterprises, Inc., Defendant—Appellant, and Oem Solutions, LLC; et al., Defendants.
    Nos. 10-56367, 10-56437.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 15, 2012.
    Philip H. Stillman, Esquire, Stillman & Associates, Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Rochelle J. Bioteau, Bruce Sherman, Squires Sherman & Bioteau, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 discretion finding the amount of sanctions either by awarding too much or too little. Id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.