Case Name: Mathew AGBAOSI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, George G. Romain, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-30
Citations: 286 F. App'x 465
Docket Number: No. 06-56694
Parties: Mathew AGBAOSI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, George G. Romain, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 465–465

Head Matter:
Mathew AGBAOSI, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, George G. Romain, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant.
No. 06-56694.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed July 30, 2008.
George G. Romain, Esq., George G. Ro-main Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff/Real-party-in-interesL-Appellant.
USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
George G. Romain, a California attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's order sanctioning him sua sponte pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Retail Flooring Dealers of Am., Inc. v. Beaulieu of Am., LLC, 339 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2003), and we vacate.
The district court abused its discretion in failing to apply the "contempt of court" standard laid out by this court for Rule 11 sua sponte sanctions. United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R & D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1116 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions, for which there is no "safe harbor" for attorneys to correct or withdraw their challenged filings, should ordinarily be imposed only in situations that are akin to contempt of court).
VACATED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.