Opinion ID: 465442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and Inherent Equity Powers

Text: 19 EIR next contends that the district court erred by failing to consider imposing sanctions on Hashemi's counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 4 or under the court's inherent equitable powers. We reject this contention. EIR never asked the district court to impose sanctions pursuant to these theories. Of course, the court could have imposed these sanctions without being prompted by EIR; however, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to do so. 20 Finally, EIR contends that the district court erred by ruling on the Rule 11 motion without a hearing and prior to receiving Hashemi's response. As EIR concedes, these matters are left to the sound discretion of the district court. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.