N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT NIKKI POOSHS,

Pla intiff,
and GILB ER T L. PUR C ELL, C ounse l for pla i ntiff Nikki Pooshs,

Appe lla nt,
v. PHILIP M ORR IS USA, INC . a nd R .J. R EYNOLDS TOB AC C O C OM PANY,

De fe nda nts. No. 16-15429

D.C
. No. 4:04-c v-01221-PJH
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Phy llis J. Ha

m ilton, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

b e r 13, 2018 * Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
NOV 16 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. C O U RT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion 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.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge , and KOB AYASHI, ** Distric t Judge

. Pla intiff Nikki Pooshs’ s c ounse l, Appe l la nt Gilbe rt L. Purc e ll a

ppe a ls from the d istric t judge ’ s M arc h 7, 2016 Orde r Im

posing Sa nc tions on Pla intiff’ s C ounse l for M isc onduc t During Tria l (“ Sa nc tions Orde r” ). The sole issue on a ppe a l is whe the r Appe lla

nt’ s proc e dura l due proc e ss rights we re viola te d . B e c a u se a distric t judge ’ s im

p osition of sa

nc tions unde r its inhe re nt a uthority is a disc re tiona

ry de c ision, we will re ve rse only whe re the re wa s a

n e rror of la

w or a
c le arly e rrone ous fa c t

ua l de te rm ination. W e re vie w de nov o the que stion of whe the r Appe lla

nt wa s a fforde d due proc e ss be fore the issua nc e of the Sa nc tions Orde r. La sa

r v. Ford M otor C o., 399 F.3d 1101, 1109 (9th C ir. 2005). Due proc e ss re quire d tha

t Appe lla n t re c e ive the following be fore the distric t
c ourt im pose d a m one ta ry sa n c tion a ga i nst him : 1) notic e of the grounds for the
sa nc tion a nd the pote ntia l ty

pe of sa nc tions tha

t m ay be im pose d; a nd 2) a n opportunity

to be he ard. Id. a

t 1109-10. The

distric t c ourt re pe a te dly warne d Appe l la n t during thetria l tha

t he wa s viola

ting prior distric t c ourt orde rs. Appe l la n t ha d am p le opportunity

to stop viola

ting the orde rs, but c hose not to do so. In a d dition, Appe lla

n t wa s ve rba lly

wa rne d during thetria l tha

t his c ontinue d

*** The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ha

w a ii, sitting by

de signa tion. 2viola

tions would re s ult in sa

nc t ions, spe c ific a lly , tha

t his c ontinue d viola

tions would re sult in m one ta

ry sa nc tions a nd a re fe rra l to the sta

te ba r a ssoc ia tion. Although the c ourt did not hold a he aring be fore it im

pose d sa nc t ions
a ga inst Appe lla

nt, the c ourt wa s not re quire d to hold one . Se e Pa c . Ha rbor C a pita l, Inc
. v. C arniva l Air Line s, Inc ., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th C ir. 2000) (sta ting tha t

“ an opportunity

to be he ard doe s not re quire an ora l or e vide ntia ry he aring on the issue ” of a ttorne y

disc ipline (c ita

tion om itte d )). Appe l la

nt ha d am ple tim e to brie f the s anc tions issue

be fore the distric t c ourt file d the Sa n c tions Orde r, but c hose not to do so. Approxim

a te ly one m onth e la

pse d be twe e n the distric t c ourt’ s ve rba l
warning a bout the im

position of sa

nc tions a nd the filing of theSa nc tions Orde r. Thus, Appe lla

nt ha d a suffic i e nt opportunity

to be he ard. Se e id. (“ The opportunity

to brie f the issue fully

satisfie s due proc e s s re quire m e nts.” (c ita tion
om i tte d)). W e the re fore hold tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s im

p osition of sa

n c tions a ga inst Appe l la n t did not viola

te his right to due proc e ss. AFFIRM E D.

3