Rosensweig

Rosensweig v. Bally Total Fitness Corp.

Good Law
14 F. App'x 765
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 18, 2001No. 99-56992; D.C. No. CV-98-05578-WDKCalifornia586 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Mathon & Rosenzweig appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions upon it in this action where it represented Marilyn Rosenzweig against Bally Total Fitness Corp. We modify the judgment and affirm.

(1) After this case was removed to the federal district court, M & R willfully failed to respond to that court’s order to show cause regarding jurisdiction. Instead, it continued with the litigation in the district court until it lost a ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Then it moved to remand to the state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted that motion, but imposed sanctions upon M & R for its volitional, unreasonable and vexatious failure to follow the dictates of the court’s initial order to show cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 42-46 , 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2131-33 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991); Mark Indus., Ltd. v. Sea Captain’s Choice, Inc., 50 F.3d 730 , 732 (9th Cir.1995). The district court’s findings and explanations were sufficient to support those sanctions because, while it did not incant the words “bad faith,” we can glean from the record that it found that M & R’s…

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.