Yagman

MEMORANDUM ***

Stephen Yagman and his law firm, Yagman & Yagman & Reichmann, appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for attorney fees and sanctions against Michael Colello. The firm also appeals the district court’s dismissal of its malicious prosecution action against Colello. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Whether or not Colello’s removal of the action against him was improper, it did not mandate sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s inherent sanctioning power, or 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . Colello based his arguments on reasonable factual investigations and plausible interpretations of the law. His conduct lacked the objective unreasonableness necessary for Rule 11 sanctions. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 47 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991); G.C. & K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1109 (9th Cir.2003). The district court reasonably found that Colello’s tactical motivation did not constitute the bad faith necessary for sanctions under the court’s inherent powers. See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2001). The court supported this conclusion with a brief…