Burnette

We affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s spurious civil RICO claim against the defendants, and imposing sanctions against plaintiffs attorney, Henry M. Steinberg. 1 The relevant facts as explained in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F.Supp. 1439 (N.D.Cal.1993), are as follows: Velma Burnette brought this action in California Superior Court against defendants following an altercation she had with Godshall. After Burnette amended her complaint to add a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), the action was removed to federal district court. Henry Steinberg, Burnette’s attorney, moved that the court dismiss the RICO claim without prejudice and remand the other claims to state court. Steinberg admitted that the RICO cause of action was added without diligent research and in an attempt to obtain treble damages. Id. at 1444 . Furthermore, Steinberg argued with a straight face that the removal was improper because “had the defendants done their homework” they would have found that Burnette’s RICO claim was meritless. Id. at 1448 .

The district court dismissed Burnette’s…