Case Name: J2F PRODUCTIONS INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, Douglas Jacobson, an individual, Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Jason SARROW, an individual, dba E.E. Morris Presents, dba ICP Films, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-07
Citations: 486 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 11-55681
Parties: J2F PRODUCTIONS INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, Douglas Jacobson, an individual, Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Jason SARROW, an individual, dba E.E. Morris Presents, dba ICP Films, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 689–689

Head Matter:
J2F PRODUCTIONS INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, Douglas Jacobson, an individual, Counter-defendant-Appellant, v. Jason SARROW, an individual, dba E.E. Morris Presents, dba ICP Films, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
No. 11-55681.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2012.
Filed Nov. 7, 2012.
Jill M. Abasto, Esquire, Pamela Deitchle, Michael Kirk Grace, Grace & Grace LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant.
Sheyanne H. Bane, Esquire, Chelsea N. Trotter, Esquire, J. Craig Williams, Esquire, Frederick Douglas Baker, Partner, Sedgwick LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant counter-claimant-Appellee.
Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Southern California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
J2F Productions, Inc., contends that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to award it attorneys fees as sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the court's inherent powers. We disagree. The district court found that Sarrow's attorneys acted neither recklessly nor in bad faith. The record does not support a conclusion that this was clear error. See Cline v. Indus. Maint. Eng'g & Contracting Co., 200 F.3d 1223, 1236 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.