N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT THE ESTATE OF JEFFR EY R ANDALL; JENNIFER R

ANDALL, individua

lly , a s suc c e s sor in inte re s t to The Esta te of Je ffre y R anda ll, a

nd a s Gua rdia n Ad Lite m to M
. R . a nd C . R
. , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. FIR ST SOLAR , INC
. , a D e la ware c orporation; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-56324 D.C . No. 5:15-c v-01066-VAP-DTB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 8, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED
FEB 12 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : GR AB E R and HUR

W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s , a

n d M ARB LEY, *** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiffs’ la

wy e rs 1 c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion to im pose
sa nc tions on the m

unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 11. " W e re v ie w the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to im pose R ule 11 sa nc tions— and, if the y

are wa rra nte d, the re a sona

ble n e ss of the a c t

ua l a m ount im pose d— for a

buse of disc re tion." C hristia n v. M a tte l, Inc ., 286 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th C ir. 2002). A distric t c ourt
a buse s its disc re t ion if its de c i s ion to a ward sa n c tions re sts on a

c le arly e rrone ous fa c t ua l finding or a " m a te ria lly inc orre c t vie w of the re le va nt la w." Id. at 1126–27 (quoting C oote r & Ge ll v. Ha rtm arx C orp., 496 U.S. 384, 402 (1990)). 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in finding tha t Pla intiffs’ la

w y e rs should

* * * The Honora

ble Alge non L. M arble y , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.
1 Pla intiffs a

re nam e d a s the a

ppe lla n ts in thenotic e of a

p pe a l. B ut the only issue on a ppe a l is whe t

he r the distric t c ourt e rre d by im posing sa nc t ions on Pla i ntiffs’ la

wy e rs. Ac c ordingly , the prope r a ppe lla nts a re Pla intiffs’ la

wy e rs. C a bre ra v . C ity

of Huntington Pa

rk, 159 F.3d 374, 382 (9th C ir. 1998) (pe r c uriam ). B e c a

u s e it is c l e ar from

the notic e of a

ppe a l tha t those la wy e rs inte nde d to a p pe a l the orde rs im

posing sa nc tions on them , the y

are pa rtie s to this a

ppe a l unde r Fe de ra l R

u le of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 3(c ) de spite not be ing liste d a s the a ppe lla nts. R e t a il Flooring De a le rs of Am ., Inc
. v. B e a ulie u of Am ., LLC , 339 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th C ir. 2003). 2have known a t le a st a s of De c e m

be r 17, 2015, tha

t this c a se la c ke d

m e rit. 2 B y

tha t tim e , it should ha

v e be e n c le ar to Pla intiffs’ la wy e rs tha t the re wa s no nonfrivolous
argum e nt tha

t Je ffre y R anda ll’ s de a th did not oc c ur in the c ourse and sc ope of his
e m ploy m e nt. Le fie ll M fg. C o . v. Supe rior C ourt, 175 C a l. R ptr. 3d 894, 900 (C t. App. 2014). B y

c ontinuing to a

dvoc a te for Pla intiffs’ tort c la i m s a fte r that da te , Pla i ntiffs’ la

wy e rs viola

te d R u le 11, a nd the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

im posing sa n c tions. Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 11(b)(2) & (3). 2. Pla intiffs’ la

wy e rs a rgue tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by inc l uding, a s pa

rt of the sa

nc tions im

pose d unde r R

ule 11, fe e s inc urre d by De fe nda nt’ s la wy e rs be fore the date on whic h the Stipula

tions W i th R e que st for Awa rd wa s a pprove d. W e re

j e c t tha t a rgum e nt be c a

use it re sts on the inc orre c t pre m ise tha

t Pla i ntiffs’ la

wy e rs c ould not ha

ve known tha

t this c a se la c ke d m e rit until thestipula

tion wa s a

pprove d. AFFIRM E D.

2 It is not c le ar from

the orde r granting De fe nda n t’ s m otion for R

u l e 11 sa nc tions whe t

he r the distric t c ourt found tha t the signing of the

Stipula tions W ith R e que st for Awa

rd, sta nding a lone , re nde re d c ontinue d prose c ution of this c a se unte na ble . B ut in its order se tting theam ount of sa nc tions, thec ourt c la

rifie d tha t the s igning of the stipula

tion wa s m e re ly one fa c t tha t bore on the ultim a te que stion whe the r Pla intiffs’ l awy e rs ha d a nonfrivolous ba s is for c ontinuing to pursue this c a se . 3