Blumberg

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Stephen Yagman appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions against him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. section 1927 , and the denial of his sanctions motion against Appellees.

*653 The imposition of sanctions under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 , 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990); Retail Flooring Dealers of Am., Inc. v. Beaulieu of Am., LLC, 339 F.3d 1146 , 1150 (9th Cir.2003); Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1135 (9th Cir.2001). An abuse of discretion occurs when the district court bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See Retail Flooring, 339 F.3d at 1150. A refusal to impose Rule 11 sanctions is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Ingham v. United States, 167 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir.1999).

1. Appellees served their Rule 11 motion upon Appellant by mail. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides a “safe harbor” period of 21 days, during which the movant must allow the opposing party to retract the offending pleading before…