Sherman S. Weber v. Abraham Gorenfeld Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Shield & Smith Law Firm

8 F.3d 34 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Sherman S. WEBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Abraham GORENFELD; Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles; County of Los Angeles; Shield & Smith Law Firm, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55441. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 2, 1993. * Decided Sept. 30, 1993. Before: TANG, CANBY AND BEEZER, CIRCUIT JUDGES. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 We affirm the district court's Rule 11 sanctions against appellant Sherman S. Weber, imposed after a remand from this court. 3 The district court's order did not violate this court's earlier mandate. Our remand authorized the district court to determine "whether sanctions should be imposed" for Weber's baseless claims against the Superior Court and the County, "and, if so, the amounts thereof." We also directed the district judge to reconsider the sanction imposed for filing the motion for reconsideration, but we did not dictate the outcome of that…