Gregory Haynes v. City of San Francisco

Good Law
2012 D.A.R. 10·474 Fed. Appx. 689·688 F.3d 984·2012 WL 2993125·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15102
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 23, 201210-16327California1,813 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

Gregory Haynes (“Haynes”) was the counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying action. The district court determined that Haynes continued pursuit of plaintiffs claims, after it was clear that the claims were frivolous and in bad faith. The court also determined that the defendants had incurred excess costs and fees of over $360,000 due to his misconduct. The court imposed sanctions on Haynes in this amount pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 , declining to consider Haynes’s assertion that he could not possibly pay such an award, and, indeed, that he had no assets and his net income for the several preceding years was less that $20,000 per year. We now hold that a district court may reduce a § 1927 sanctions award in light of an attorney’s inability to pay. Because the district court appeared to believe that it was without discretion to reduce the sanctions award on this ground, and accordingly failed to consider whether to exercise that discretion, we remand for further proceedings.

I.

Cheryl Cotterill retained Haynes and filed suit in California state court after she was taken into custody by the local police and then hospitalized for ten days because she had suffered a…

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.