Brewer

MEMORANDUM **

Cables and Accessories, Inc. (“Cables”) and its counsel, Sun C. Chen, appeal from the district court’s order denying Cables’ appeal from the bankruptcy court and sanctioning Chen for bringing a frivolous appeal, for making deliberate misrepresentations to the court, and for including in his brief unsubstantiated inflammatory statements against the appellees. We conclude that Cables’ appeal to the district court lacked any merit; that the present appeal to this court similarly lacks any merit; and that the district court acted within its discretion by sanctioning Chen. We affirm the district court’s order in all respects.

Michael A. Brewer, Hornberger & Brewer, Power Play Products, Inc., Elliot Buzil, Adam Technologies, Inc., Vincent DeVito, and Charlie Kuo (collectively, “Brewer”), all defendants in the adverse action in the bankruptcy court, have again moved for sanctions against Chen based on his conduct before this court. While we reject Chen’s claims as far-fetched, we exercise our discretion to deny the award of sanctions on this appeal.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 1995, Cables served as a middleman between a domestic company seeking to buy power…

concurring in the judgment.

I would dismiss the appeal as Cables, a California corporation suspended under Cal. Rev. & Tax.Code § 23301, lacks the capacity to prosecute this appeal. Christian & Porter Aluminum, Co. v. Titus, 584 F.2d 326, 331 (9th Cir.1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b). See also Grell v. Laci Le Beau Corp., 72 Cal.App.4th 1300 , 1306, 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 768 (1999).

But if the appeal is not dismissed, then I would also issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for a frivolous appeal.