Court Opinion

ID: 9870433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:57:31.323302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:08.747990
License: Public Domain

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
This litigation began when Hovore, on behalf of Prasad Industries, filed thirteen civil claims—including RICO—in what Ho-vore’s counsel on appeal described at oral argument as a “simple contract case.” Ho-vore followed up with a demand letter threatening criminal action if a large sum of money was not immediately transferred. Douglas filed the “First Amended Answer, Counterclaims, Cross-Claims and Jury Demand” in response. I do not believe that Douglas’s action was sufficiently reckless to justify sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Contrary to the District Court’s conclusion, a “cursory reading” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not show that the filing was improper. Moreover, the filing did not require Prasad “to *678obtain independent representation during the pendency of the improperly pleaded claims against Hovore,” as the District Court incorrectly stated. I would, therefore, reverse the award of sanctions against Douglas.