Rowland

Rowland v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.

Good Law
142 F.4th 1169
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 7, 202524-5196California2,089 words

Opinion

Opinion

facts known because of their roles. Here, Brumley did exactly that. Brumley accordingly acted “as an attorney” when he signed and submitted that affidavit as General Counsel of WTPA and may be sanctioned under § 1927.

COUNSEL

Ryan R. Shaffer (argued), Meyer Shaffer & Stepans PLLP, Missoula, Montana, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Benjamin G. Shatz (argued) and Benjamin E. Strauss, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, California; Gerry P. Fagan, Christopher T. Sweeney, and Jordan W. FitzGerald, Moulton Bellingham PC, Billings, Montana; for Appellant.

ROWLAND V. WATCHTOWER & BIBLE TRACT SOCIETY 5

OPINION

LASNIK, District Judge:

Attorney Philip Brumley was sanctioned by the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for submitting a signed affidavit that demonstrated a reckless disregard for providing an accurate and truthful accounting of facts relevant to determining whether the court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (“WTPA”), causing the proceedings to be multiplied for seventeen months. Brumley, an attorney admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, signed the affidavit in his role as General…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.