Source: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mgarde/scott5.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:43:32+00:00

Document:
back later for proofread version.
Before: HALL and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. SHUBB*, District Judge.
the  Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
Mayo on his remaining counterclaims.
certain terms and conditions in conjunction with the marks it owns.
107 9. Ct. 1336, 94 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987); Religious Technology Center et al.
v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989); Religious Technology Center v.
bean presented or unless the first panel's ruling was clearly erroneous.
was improper under Rule 37.  We will discuss these arguments in turn.
master to supervise discovery and law and motions practice.
Northern R,R. Co. v Department of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064, 1073 (9th Cir.
have ever heard of to avoid such compliance, and some that are new to us.
5.  Yet it is all puffery -- motions without merit or substance.
violation of the Constitution by unconstitutional delegation fails.
Dismissals under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
party facing sanctions acted in bad faith. Anheuser-Busch, 69 F.3d at 348.
because RTC acted in good faith.
hearing is well within the court's discretion.
given full opportunity to demonstrate the nonexistence of the documents.
to have in their possession the documents in question in this law suit."
April 17, 1992 dismissal is affirmed.
abused its discretion in awarding fees at all.
authority to award fees when the losing party has acted in bad faith.
the first amendment in this particular context."
master recommended an award of $2.9 million.
with the special master on three issues.
3/We find RTC's other claims of rubber stamping equally meritless.
whether or not the court below abused its discretion in awarding fees.
D'Emanuele v. Montgomery Ward &  Co.,  Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 1386 (9th Cir.
properly calculated and specifically explained in light of the Kerr factors.
$300 per hour for partners, $50 per hour for paralegals and law clerks).
its discretion in awarding fees.
"false testimony to the IRS" and having attempted to "shift attention from .
material facts are in dispute and summary judgment was improper.
not identify a specific amount of damages related to those terminations.
Cal.App.3d 377, 382, 226 Cal Rptr. 354, 356 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986).
occurred within the Year before Mayo filed his emotional distress claim.
that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim." Fed. R. Civ. P.
13(a).  Courts making this determination ask whether the "essential facts"
the resolution of the first claim would moot the counterclaim.  Pochiro v.
Prudential Ins, Co. of America, 827 F 2d 1246, 1249-51 (9th Cir. 1987).
been completed." Wyatt v. Union Morg. Co., 24 Cal.3d 773, 786, 157 Cal.
impact on the judicial process." United States v. Nix, 21 F.3d 347 (9th Cir.
1994) (quoting Russell v. Rolfs, 893 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
(1995) (quoting Britton v Co-op Banking Group, 4 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.
sub nom. Kulalani Ltd. v. Corey, 498 U.S. 815 (1990))).
distributing, exhibiting or in any way publicly revealing" the scriptures.
its scriptures. Id. at 1310.
remaining counterclaims is REVERSED and the case REMANDED.
NOONAN, Circuit Judge, concurring separately.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.