Brenda J. Hamer v. Career College Association

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 15156·979 F.2d 758·1992 WL 321283·24 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 9·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 29566
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 10, 199291-55793California1,631 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schroeder, J.

This is an appeal by an attorney from the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions arising out of her representation of a minority-owned trade school. The school had been denied accreditation, on financial grounds, by the defendant accreditation agency, Career College Association, which was then known as the National Association of Trade and Technical Schools (“NATTS”). The complaint alleged claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with advantageous business relationships, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and denial of due process. In assessing sanctions against the attorney, Brenda Hamer, the district court expressly found that most of the claims alleged in the complaint were non-frivolous. The district court focused exclusively upon what it interpreted to be a factually unfounded claim of racial discrimination underlying the due process claim. Its interpretation was based in large part on appellant’s statements in response to the court’s questioning at an oral hearing.

Sanctions under the 1983 amendments to Rule 11 should be based upon the attorney’s signed “pleading, motion, or other paper.” The signature constitutes a…

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.