Barber

Barber v. Miller

Good Law
146 F.3d 707·1998 WL 309207
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 1998Nos. 96-55725, 96-55860California1,699 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Canby, J.

Attorney Miles Carlsen appeals an award of Rule 11 sanctions against him, while Im- *709 ageware cross-appeals the amount of the award and the refusal to give other sanctions. We reverse the award of sanctions, because the motion for sanctions was not served upon Carlsen 21 days before filing, as required by the 1993 amendments to Rule 11, so as to give Carlsen an opportunity to withdraw the complaint without suffering sanctions. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1)(A).

BACKGROUND

Carlsen initially filed in the district court, on behalf of his client Pamela Barber, a forty page complaint against Imageware Software, Inc. et al. The complaint alleged eight state law causes of action and two federal claims: patent infringement and a RICO violation. Carlsen concedes that Barber did not own the patent in question; the complaint alleged that she had transferred it to another. Shortly thereafter, Imageware’s attorney telephoned Carlsen. That attorney declared that she offered to provide Carlsen with authority indicating that only the owner of a patent has standing to sue for its infringement, and that Carlsen declined to discuss the matter.

Subsequently, Imagewares attorneys requested by letter…

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.