22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47f,MEMORANDUM Sean Michael Park appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing mone tary sanctions against him for filing an improper notice of removal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees against Park as a sanction after giving him notice and an opportunity to respond, and finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Park misrepresented that he was an intervening party and signed defendant’s name without her authorization on the notice of removal. See id. at 43-46 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 (recognizing court’s inherent power to impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, for conduct that abuses the judicial process); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c) (stating that a court may sanction a party sua sponte, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, for violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ac,

MEMORANDUM

Sean Michael Park appeals pro se from the district court’s order imposing mone tary sanctions against him for filing an improper notice of removal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees against Park as a sanction after giving him notice and an opportunity to respond, and finding, after an evidentiary hearing, that Park misrepresented that he was an intervening party and signed defendant’s name without her authorization on the notice of removal. See id. at 43-46 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 (recognizing court’s inherent power to impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, for conduct that abuses the judicial process); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c) (stating that a court may sanction a party sua sponte, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, for violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.