Anderson

Anderson v. George

Good Law
2 F. App'x 799
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 24, 2001No. 00-56411California292 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Gloria Dredd Haney appeals pro se the district court’s order that she pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees in an action where Haney represented plaintiff Anderson. Haney also appeals the district court’s denial of her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . See Primus Automotive Fin. Servs. ., Inc. v. Botarse, 115 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir.1997). We also review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. See Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

In order to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers, a district court must make an explicit finding that an attorney’s conduct constituted bad faith, unless the bad faith is patent from the record. See Primus, 115 F.3d at 648-49 . The district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Haney pay appellees’ attorneys’ fees because “the record sets forth sufficient evidence to support its decision.” Toombs v. Leone, 777 F.2d 465,…

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.