Opinion ID: 514584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: combined's motion for appellate sanctions

Text: 66 Combined's final argument is that because Kale has vexatiously multiplied the proceedings in this case by pursuing a frivolous appeal we should award sanctions under Fed.R.App.P. 38 17 and 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1912 18 & 1927. 19 We agree with Combined that the fact that sanctions may have been uncalled for at the district level should not deter an appellate court from sanctioning the appeal in appropriate cases. See Trustees of Boston University v. Boston University Chapter, American Association of University Professors, 746 F.2d 924, 927 (1st Cir.1984) (per curiam). We find, however, that appellate sanctions are not warranted. 67 Although Sec. 1912 and Rule 38 differ slightly--the former speaking of 'delay' while the latter concerns 'frivolous' appeals--courts have typically ignored this distinction and imposed sanctions under the rule and the statute. Natasha, Inc. v. Evita Marine Charters, Inc., 763 F.2d 468, 472 (1st Cir.1985). Thus, we have held that the standard for imposing such sanctions is whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., where the  'result is obvious,' or the arguments are 'wholly without merit.'  Id. (quoting NLRB v. Catalina Yachts, 679 F.2d 180, 182 (9th Cir.1982) (citations omitted)); see Ochoa Realty Corp. v. Faria, 815 F.2d 812, 817-18 (1st Cir.1987); Trustees of Boston University, 746 F.2d at 927. Based upon this standard, we cannot say that Kale's argument, asking us to adopt a liberal equitable tolling doctrine for this circuit, was frivolous; nor was his pretext argument totally without merit. Sanctions are thus inappropriate. 68 Since we do not find Kale's appeal frivolous, a fortiori, his attorney's actions cannot be seen as unreasonable or vexatious under the standard imposed by Sec. 1927. 20