Truesdell
Truesdell v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** AND ORDER
In a previous appeal, we remanded the award of Rule 11 sanctions for clarification in the light of Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.2002). Truesdell v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 293 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.2002). On remand, the district court confirmed that the sanctions order was based solely on the filings in this case and not on Zamos’ history with Permanente. All references to that history were excised.
Zamos argues that he was entitled to another opportunity to argue all the merits of the sanctions order on remand. Neither the mandate nor due process required another hearing. A full hearing was held before the district court issued its initial Rule 11 order, and the second order relies on fewer, but the same, facts in support of the sanctions award. We already held (1) that the “complaint was sanctionable because it was both legally frivolous and factually misleading,” and (2) that the district court “did not abuse its discretion by ordering sanctions” on the ground that the complaint was misleading. Id. at 1153-54 . The district court’s order must be affirmed.
We also grant Permanente’s opposed motion for sanctions under Federal…
Concurrence in Part
Kleinfeld, J.
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the disposition but dissent from the order awarding sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.