Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-Appellees

Bad Law
780 F.2d 823·4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 264·54 U.S.L.W. 2396·1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21337
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 16, 198684-6238California6,391 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiggins, J.

The district court granted summary judgment for intervenors and assessed sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorneys in the amount of $14,951.25 for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs and their attorneys appeal from that portion of the judgment assessing sanctions against them. Under the circumstances of this case, the district court improperly assessed sanctions under Rule 11 and we reverse.

I

HISTORY OF THE CASE

In this case, the law was deployed as a weapon in a controversy for which it is ill-suited: a purely political dispute in the City of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are residents and voters of the Fourteenth Council District of Los Angeles. They are, more than incidentally, strong political supporters of Councilman Arthur Snyder of that district. The nominal defendants are the City of Los Angeles and its city clerk. These defendants have no genuine interest in this litigation adverse to the plaintiffs. The intervenors are likewise residents and voters of the Fourteenth District who, significantly, are strong political opponents of Councilman Snyder.

The plaintiffs were represented by the Los Angeles law firm of Iverson, Yoakum,…

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.