Opinion ID: 465442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Hashemi's Counsel Acted In Bad Faith

Text: 14 EIR contends, alternatively, that the district court erred in finding that Cook and Pottinger did not act in bad faith. An action is brought in bad faith when the claim is entirely without color and has been asserted wantonly, for the purposes of harassment or delay, or for other improper purposes. Tedeschi, 579 F.Supp. at 661. The district court denied EIR's Rule 11 motion for sanctions stating: 15 It is apparently defendant's contention that the indictment and the settlement agreement attached to the motion for sanctions demonstrate that the statement made was true, and plaintiff and his attorney should have known it was true, such that the complaint was filed in bad faith. None of the documents in support of the motion for sanctions pursuant to rule 11 demonstrate to this court that the published statement of which Mr. Hashemi sued for libel and defamation was true. That being the case, the court cannot say that the complaint was filed in bad faith, and therefore defendant's motion for sanctions under rule 11 is denied. 16 We hold that the district court's finding that Pottinger and Cook did not act in bad faith in this case is not clearly erroneous. 17 EIR also contends that in arriving at its determination that Pottinger and Cook did not act in bad faith, the district court erred in imposing on EIR the burden of persuading the court conclusively as to the underlying libel and defamation action. EIR contends that Hashemi and counsel acted in bad faith because they brought an action for libel and defamation against EIR even though they knew EIR's articles were true. The district court simply found the evidence insufficient to support a finding of bad faith under the theory EIR advanced. This finding was not clearly erroneous. Like the district court, we refuse to speculate whether bad faith could have been shown on some other theory. 3 18