McPhail's, Inc. v. Craighead

Good Law
67 F.3d 307·1995 WL 572863·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 32772
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 27, 199594-15473California1,241 words

Opinion

Opinion

67 F.3d 307 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. McPHAIL'S, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, and Robert A. Nellessen, Appellant, v. Daniel CRAIGHEAD, individually and doing business as D.C. Crane Excavating, Defendant, and Diane Cupples, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15473. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 15, 1995. * Decided Sept. 27, 1995. Before: KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and SILVER ** , District Judge. MEMORANDUM *** Robert Nellessen, the attorney for defendant/cross-claimant Daniel Craighead in the underlying lawsuit, appeals pro se the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against him. Nellessen filed a motion seeking to enforce a settlement he claimed he had entered into on behalf of his client with Diane Cupples, a cross-defendant. Magistrate Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Nellessen's motion, and ordered sanctions against him because she found that the motion "was entirely frivolous." 1 Judge Eugene F. Lynch…

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.