Case ID: f-appx_226/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerome SAPIRO, Jr.; et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENCOMPASS INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee, and Safeco Insurance Company of America, Defendant. Neil D. Eisenberg, Appellant and Real Party in Interest.
    No. 05-15310.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 16, 2007.
    Neil D. Eisenberg, Esq., Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.
    David Richard Simonton, Esq., Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, San Francisco, CA, [Ret.] Lori A. Sebransky, Esq., Lombardi Loper & Conant LLP, Oakland, CA, for Encompass Insurance and Safeco Insurance Company of America.
    Before: REINHARDT, RYMER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Neil D. Eisenberg appeals the district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions following dismissal of a complaint he filed. The district court did not consider Berry v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 387 (9th Cir.1996), which provides arguable support for the theory that Eisenberg pled. So, too, does Central Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, 2 Cal.App.4th 926, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 622 (1992). In light of these authorities, we cannot uphold the sanctions that were imposed. Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir.1986).

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